Deception in plants: mimicry or perceptual exploitation?

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 676-685

  Schaefer, H Martin ^a   Ruxton, Graeme D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; COGNITION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FLOWER; MIMICRY; PERCEPTION; POLLINATION;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; EVOLUTION; FLOWER; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT; REVIEW;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FLOWERS; PERCEPTION; PLANTS;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 71849088831     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.006     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Ruxton G.D., et al. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry (2004), Oxford University Press
2. Wickler W. Mimicry (1968), Kindler Verlag
3. Roy B.A., and Widmer A. Floral mimicry: a fascinating yet poorly understood phenomenon. Trends Plant Sci. 4 (1999) 325-330
4. Endler J.A. An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 16 (1981) 25-31
5. Pasteur G. A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13 (1982) 169-199
6. Ryan M.J., et al. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343 (1990) 187-195
7. Christy J.H. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am. Nat. 146 (1995) 171-181
8. Proctor H.C. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim. Behav. 42 (1991) 589-598
9. Endler J.A., and Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 415-420
10. Basolo A.L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250 (1990) 808-810
11. Vereecken N.J., and Schiestl F.P. The evolution of imperfect floral mimicry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 (2008) 7484-7488
12. Naug D., and Arathi H.S. Receiver bias for exaggerated signals in honeybees and its implications for the evolution of floral displays. Biol. Lett. 3 (2007) 635-637
13. Strauss S.Y., and Irwin R.E. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 35 (2004) 433-466
14. Ryan M.J., and Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139 (1992) S4-S35
15. Kropf M., and Renner S.S. Pollination success in monochromic yellow populations of the rewardless orchid Dactylorhiza sambucina. Plant Syst. Evol. 254 (2005) 185-197
16. Martin N.H. Flower size preferences of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) foraging on Mimulus guttatus (Scorphulariaceae). Evol. Ecol. Res. 6 (2004) 777-782
17. Chittka L., and Raine N.E. Recognition of flowers by pollinators. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 9 (2006) 428-435
18. ten Cate C., and Rowe C. Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 (2007) 380-387
19. Heiling A.M., et al. Crab-spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature 421 (2003) 334
20. Vahed K. All that glisters is not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113 (2007) 105-127
21. Johnson S.D., et al. Experimental and phylogenetic evidence for floral mimicry in a guild of fly-pollinated plants. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80 (2003) 289-304
22. Galizia C.G., et al. Relationship of visual and olfactory signal parameters in a food-deceptive flower mimicry system. Behav. Ecol. 16 (2005) 159-168
23. Benitez-Vieyra S., et al. How to look like a mallow: evidence of floral mimicry between Turneraceae and Malvaceae. Proc. R. Soc. B 274 (2007) 2239-2248
24. Peter C.I., and Johnson S.D. Mimics and magnets: the importance of color and ecological facilitation in floral deception. Ecology 89 (2008) 1583-1595
25. Ferdy J.B., et al. Pollinator behavior and deceptive pollination: learning process and floral evolution. Am. Nat. 152 (1998) 696-705
26. Renner S.S. Rewardless flowers in the angiosperms and the role of insect cognition in their evolution. In: Waser N.M., and Ollerton J. (Eds). Specialisation and Generalization in Pollination Systems (2005), University of Chicago Press 123-144
27. Jersáková J., et al. Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids. Biol. Rev. 81 (2006) 219-235
28. Dafni A. Mimicry and deception in pollination. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15 (1984) 259-278
29. Faegri K., and van der Pijil L. The Principles of Pollination (1979), Pergamon Press
30. Schiestl F.P. On the success of a swindle: pollination by deception in orchids. Naturwissenschaften 92 (2005) 255-264
31. Nilsson L.A. Orchid pollination biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 (1992) 255-259
32. Ayasse M., et al. Evolution of reproductive strategies in the sexually deceptive orchid Ophrys sphegodes: How does flower-specific variation of odor signals influence reproductive success?. Evolution 54 (2000) 1995-2006
33. Vereecken N.J., et al. Population differentiation in female mating signals and male preferences in a solitary bee. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61 (2007) 811-821
34. Gigord L.D.B., et al. Negative frequency-dependent selection maintains a dramatic flower color polymorphism in the rewardless orchid Dactylorhiza sambucina (L.) Soó. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (2001) 6253-6255
35. Jersáková J., et al. Is the colour dimorphism in Dactylorhiza sambucina maintained by differential seed viability instead of frequency-dependent selection?. Folia Geobot. 41 (2006) 61-76
36. Schemske D.W., and Bierzychudek P. Spatial differentiation for flower color in the desert annual Linanthus parryae: was Wright right?. Evolution 61 (2007) 2528-2543
37. Cozzolino S., et al. Evidence for pollinator sharing in Mediterranean nectar-mimic orchids: absence of premating barriers? Proc. R. Soc. B 272 (2005) 1271-1278
38. Cozzolino S., and Scopece G. Specificity in pollination and consequences for postmating reproductive isolation in deceptive Mediterranean orchids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363 (2008) 3037-3046
39. Raguso R.A. Wake up and smell the roses: the ecology and evolution of floral scent. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 39 (2008) 549-569
40. Raine N.E., and Chittka L. The adaptive significance of sensory bias in a foraging context: floral colour preferences in the Bumblebee Bombus terrestris. PLos One 2 (2007) e556
41. Riffell J.A., et al. Behavioral consequences of innate preferences and olfactory learning in hawkmoth-flower interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 (2008) 3404-3409
42. Sumner P., and Mollon J.D. Catarrhine photopigments are optimised for detecting targets against a foliage background. J. Exp. Biol. 203 (2000) 1963-1986
43. Schmidt V., et al. Conspicuousness, not colour as foraging cue in plant-animal interactions. Oikos 106 (2004) 551-557
44. Kelber A. Receptor based models for spontaneous colour choices in flies and butterflies. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 99 (2001) 231-244
45. Prokopy R.J., and Owens E.D. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28 (1983) 337-364
46. Biesmeijer J.C., et al. Convergent evolution: floral guides, stingless bee nest entrances, and insectivorous pitchers. Naturwissenschaften 92 (2005) 444-450
47. Johnson S.D. Evidence of Batesian mimicry in a butterfly-pollinated orchid. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 53 (1994) 91-104
48. Schiestl F.P., et al. The chemistry of sexual deception in an orchid-wasp pollination system. Science 302 (2003) 437-438
49. Mallet J., and Joron M. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30 (1999) 201-233
50. Schiestl F.P. Floral evolution and pollinator mate choice in a sexually deceptive orchid. J. Evol. Biol. 17 (2004) 67-75
51. Joron M. Batesian mimicry: Can a leopard change its spots - and get them back? Curr. Biol. 18 (2008) R476-R479
52. Joel D.M. Mimicry and mutualism in carnivorous pitcher plants (Sarraceniaceae, Nepenthaceae, Cephalotaceae, Bromeliaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 35 (1988) 185-197
53. Prudic K.L., and Oliver J.C. Once a Batesian mimic, not always a Batesian mimic: mimic reverts back to ancestral phenotype when the model is absent. Proc. R. Soc. B 275 (2008) 1125-1132
54. Schaefer H.M., et al. How plant-animal interactions signal new insights in communication. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 577-584
55. Dukas R., and Real L.A. Effects of nectar variance on learning by bumble bees. Anim. Behav. 45 (1993) 37-41
56. Shafir S., et al. Cognition-mediated coevolution -context-dependent evaluations and sensitivity of pollinators to variability in nectar rewards. Plant Syst. Evol 238 (2003) 195-209
57. Menzel F., and Greggers U. Temporal dynamics and foraging behaviour in honeybees. In: Billen J. (Ed). Biology and Evolution of Social Insects (1992), Leuven University Press 303-318
58. Chittka L., and Osorio D. Cognitive dimensions of predator responses to imperfect mimicry?. PLOS Biol. 5 (2007) e339
59. Johnson S.D., et al. Pollination success in a deceptive orchid is enhanced by co-occurring rewarding magnet plants. Ecology 84 (2003) 2919-2927
60. Franks D.W., and Sheratt T.N. The evolution of multi-component mimicry. J. Theor. Biol. 244 (2007) 631-639
61. Johnson S.D., and Morita S. Lying to Pinocchio: floral deception in an orchid pollinated by long-proboscid flies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 152 (2006) 271-278
62. McKey D. The ecology of coevolved seed dispersal systems. In: Gilbert L.E., and Raven P.H. (Eds). Coevolution of Animals and Plants (1975), University of Texas Press 159-191
63. Van der Pijil L. Principles of Dispersal in Higher Plants (1972), Springer-Verlag
64. Lev-Yadun S., and Inbar M. Defensive ant, aphid and caterpillar mimicry in plants? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 77 (2002) 393-398
65. Soltau U., et al. Leaf variegation in Caladium steudneriifolium (Araceae): a case of mimicry?. Evol. Ecol. 23 (2009) 503-512
66. Yearsley J.M., et al. A theory of associating food types with their postingestive consequences. Am. Nat. 167 (2006) 705-716
67. Menzel R., et al. Functional organization of appetitive learning and memory in a generalist pollinator, the honey bee. In: Papaj D.R., and Lewis A.C. (Eds). Insect Learning (1993), Chapman & Hall 79-125
68. Prabhu C., and Cheng K. One day is all it takes: circadian modulation of the retrieval of colour memories in honeybees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63 (2008) 11-22
69. Guerrieri F., et al. Perceptual and neural olfactory similarity in honeybees. PLOS Biol. 3 (2005) e60
70. Gumbert A. Color choices by bumble bees (Bombus terrestris): Innate preferences and generalization after learning. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48 (2000) 36-43
71. Jones C.D., et al. Colour categorization by domestic chicks. Proc. R. Soc. B 268 (2001) 2077-2084
72. Jansson L., and Enquist M. Receiver bias for colourful signals. Anim. Behav. 66 (2003) 965-971
73. Lynn S.K., et al. Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution 59 (2005) 1300-1305
74. Shettleworth S.J. Cognition, Evolution, and Behaviour (1998), Oxford University Press
75. Dukas R. Behavioural and ecological consequences of limited attention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 357 (2002) 1539-1547
76. Burns K.C. Does mimicry occur between fleshy-fruits? Evol. Ecol. Res. 7 (2005) 1067-1076
77. Galetti M. Seed dispersal of mimetic seeds: parasitism, mutualism, aposematism or exaptation?. In: Levey D.J., et al. (Eds). Seed Dispersal and Frugivory: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation (2002), CABI Publishing 177-191
78. Peres C.A., and van Roosmalen M.G.M. Avian dispersal of 'mimetic seeds' of Ormosia lignivalvis by terrestrial granivores: deception of mutualism?. Oikos 75 (1996) 249-258
79. Campitelli B.E., et al. Leaf variegation is associated with reduced herbivore damage in Hydrophyllum virginianum. Botany Botanique 86 (2008) 306-313
80. Smith A.P. Ecology of a leaf color polymorphism in a tropical forest species. habitat segregation and herbivory. Oecologia 69 (1986) 283-287
81. Givnish T.J. Leaf mottling: relation to growth form and leaf phenology and possible role as camouflage. Funct. Ecol. 4 (1990) 463-474
82. Barlow B.A., and Wiens D. Host-parasite resemblance in Australian mistletoes: the case for cryptic mimicry. Evolution 31 (1977) 69-84
83. Canyon D.V., and Hill C.J. Mistletoe host-resemblance: a study of herbivory, nitrogen and moisture in two Australian mistletoes and their host trees. Austr. J. Ecol. 22 (1997) 395-403
84. Brodmann J., et al. Orchids mimic green-leaf volatiles to attract prey-hunting wasps for pollination. Curr. Biol. 18 (2008) 740-744
85. Chittka L., et al. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (2009) 400-407
86. Mant J., et al. Does selection on floral odor promote differentiation among populations and species of the sexually deceptive orchid genus Ophrys?. Evolution 59 (2005) 1449-1463