Distastefulness as an antipredator defence strategy

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 78, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 761-766

  Skelhorn, John ^a   Rowe, Candy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

aposematism; Bitrex; chemical defence; dietary cognition; European starling; predation; Sturnus vulgaris; toxin

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; APOSEMATISM; CHEMICAL DEFENSE; COGNITION; LEARNING; PASSERINE; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY CAPTURE; PREY PREFERENCE; TOXIN;

AVES; HEXAPODA; STURNUS VULGARIS; TENEBRIO; TENEBRIO MOLITOR;

EID: 69249203499     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barnett C.A., Bateson M., and Rowe C. State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey. Behavioral Ecology 18 (2007) 645-651
2. Brower L.P. Chemical defence in butterflies. In: Vane-Wright R.I., and Ackery P.R. (Eds). The Biology of Butterflies (1984), Academic Press, London 109-134
3. Chandrashekar J., Mueller K.L., Hoon M.A., Adler E., Feng L., Guo W., Zuker C.S., and Ryba N.J.P. T2Rs function as bitter taste receptors. Cell 100 (2000) 703-711
4. Cott H.B. Adaptive Coloration in Animals (1940), Methuen, London
5. Dong D., Jones G., and Zhang S. Dynamic evolution of bitter taste receptor genes in vertebrates. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9 (2009) 12
6. Eisner T., and Meinwald J. Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153 (1966) 1341-1350
7. Eisner T., Eisner M., and Siegler M. Secret Weapons: Defences in Insects, Spiders, Scorpions, and Other Many-legged Creatures (2005), Harvard University Press, London
8. Franchina J.J., Moon C., and Peters S. Effects of toxin magnitude on taste aversion and taste-potentiated aversion to visual cues in chicks (Gallus domesticus). Physiology and Behavior 62 (1997) 605-609
9. Gamberale-Stille G., and Guilford T. Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271 (2004) 2621-2625
10. Gilardi J.D., Duffey S.S., Munn C.A., and Tell L.A. Biochemical functions of geophagy in parrots: detoxification of dietary toxins and cytoprotective effects. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25 (1999) 897-922
11. Glendinning J.I. Is the bitter rejection response always adaptive?. Physiology and Behavior 56 (1994) 1217-1227
12. Glisan King A., and Meinwald J. Review of the defensive chemistry of Coccinellids. Chemical Reviews 96 (1996) 1105-1122
13. Guglielmo C.G., Karasov W.H., and Jakubas W.J. Nutritional costs of a plant metabolite explain selective foraging by ruffed grouse. Ecology 77 (1996) 1103-1115
14. Halpin C.G., Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Being conspicuous and defended: selective benefits for the individual. Behavioral Ecology 19 (2008) 1012-1017
15. Halpin C.G., Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Naïve predators and selection for rare conspicuous defended prey: the initial evolution of aposematism revisited. Animal Behaviour 75 (2008) 771-781
16. Harriman A.E. Rejection thresholds for citric acid solutions in cowbirds, starlings, and red-wing blackbirds. American Midland Naturalist 79 (1968) 240-242
17. Kokko H., Mappes J., and Lindström L. Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecology Letters 6 (2003) 1068-1076
18. Mappes J., Marples N., and Endler J. The complex business of survival by aposematism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (2005) 598-603
19. Marples N.M., and Roper T.J. Response of domestic chicks to methyl anthranilate odour. Animal Behaviour 53 (1997) 1263-1270
20. Mostler G. Beobachtungen zur Frage der Wespenmimikry. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere 29 (1935) 381-454
21. Mueller K.L., Hoon M.A., Erlenbach I., Chandrashekar J., Zuker C.S., and Ryba N.J. The receptors and coding logic for bitter taste. Nature 434 (2005) 225-229
22. Nishida R. Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 47 (2002) 57-92
23. Schafer E.W., Bowels W.A., and Hurlbut J. The acute oral toxicity, repellency, and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more species of wild and domestic birds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 12 (1983) 355-382
24. Sherratt T.N. State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey. Oikos 103 (2003) 93-100
25. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predators may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey. Biology Letters 1 (2005) 500-503
26. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Predator avoidance learning of prey with secreted or stored defences and the evolution of insect defences. Animal Behaviour 72 (2006) 827-834
27. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Prey palatability influences predator learning and memory. Animal Behaviour 71 (2006) 1111-1118
28. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Taste-rejection by predators can explain the evolution of unpalatability. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60 (2006) 550-555
29. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical investment. Biology Letters 2 (2006) 348-350
30. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Automimic frequency influences the foraging decisions of avian predators on aposematic prey. Animal Behaviour 74 (2007) 1563-1572
31. Skelhorn J., and Rowe C. Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Current Biology 17 (2007) 1479-1483