Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 418-424

  Barnett, Craig A ^a,b   Skelhorn, John ^a,c   Bateson, Melissa ^a   Rowe, Candy ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b RIKKYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

M llerian mimicry; predation; state dependent foraging; toxin regulation; warning coloration

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; APOSEMATISM; BEETLE; BIOENERGETICS; DECISION MAKING; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; LEARNING; MIMICRY; PASSERINE; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY CAPTURE; SIGNAL; TOXIN;

ANIMALIA; AVES; STURNUS VULGARIS; TENEBRIO; TENEBRIO MOLITOR;

EID: 84857511055     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr206     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adler LS. 2000. The ecological significance of toxic nectar. Oikos. 91:409-420.
2. Barnett CA, Bateson M, Rowe C. 2007. State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey. Behav Ecol. 18:645-651.
3. Bezzerides AL, McGraw KJ, Parker RS, Husseini J. 2007. Elytra color as a signal of chemical defense in the Asian ladybird beetle Harmonia axyridis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1401-1408.
4. Blount JD, Speed MP, Ruxton GD, Stephens PA. 2009. Warning displays may function as honest signals of toxicity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:871-877.
5. Brower LP. 1984. Chemical defences I. Butterflies. In: Vane-Write RI, Ackery PR, editors. The biology of butterflies. London: Academic Press. p. 109-134.
6. Chai P. 1986. Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) to freeflying butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biol J Linn Soc. 29:161-189.
7. Cipollini ML, Douglas JL. 1997. Why are some fruits toxic? Glycoalkaloids in solanum and fruit choice by vertebrates. Ecology. 78:782-798.
8. Cornell JC, Stamp NE, Bowers MD. 1987. Developmental change in aggregation, defense and escape behaviour of buckmoth caterpillars, Hemileuca lucina (Saturniidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 20:383-388.
9. Darst CR, Cummings ME, Cannatella DC. 2006. A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:5852-5857.
10. Dearing MD, Foley WJ, Mclean S. 2005. The influence of plant secondary metabolites on the nutritional ecology of herbivorous terrestrial vertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 36:169-189.
11. De Souza LL, Ferrari SF, Da Costa ML, Kern DC. 2002. Geophagy as a correlate of folivory in red-handed howler monkeys (Alouatta belzebul) from eastern Brazilian Amazonia. J Chem Ecol. 28:1613-1621.
12. Gelparin A. 1968. Feeding behaviour of the praying mantis: a learned modification. Nature. 219:399-400.
13. Gittleman J, Harvey PH. 1980. Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature. 286:149-150.
14. Guilford T. 1994. "Go-slow" signalling and the problem of automimicry. J Theor Biol. 130:311-316.
15. Hanifin CT, Brodie ED Jr, Brodie ED III. 2008. Phenotypic mismatches reveal escape from arms-race coevolution. PLoS Biol. 6:e60.
16. Hatle JD, Salazar BA, Whitman DW. 2002. Survival advantage of sluggish individuals in aggregations of aposematic prey, during encounters with ambush predators. Evol Ecol. 16:415-431.
17. Hileman JS, Brodie ED Jr, Formanowicz DR Jr. 1995. Avoidance of unpalatable prey by predaceous diving beetle larvae: the role of hunger level and experience (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). J Insect Behav. 8:241-249.
18. Kokko H, Mappes J, Lindström L. 2003. Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecol Lett. 6:1068-1076.
19. Lindström L, Lyytinen A, Mappes J, Ojala K. 2006. Relative importance of taste and visual similarity in Müllerian mimicry. Anim Behav. 72:323-333.
20. Marples NM, Quinlan M, Thomas RJ, Kelly DJ. 2007. Deactivation of dietary wariness through experience of novel food. Behav Ecol. 18:803-810.
21. Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, Andrew RL, Foley WJ. 2006. The detoxification limitation hypothesis: where did it come from and where is it going? J Chem Ecol. 6:1247-1266.
22. Marshall NJ. 2000. Communication and camouflage with the same 'bright' colours in reef fishes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 355:1243-1248.
23. Moore B, Foley WJ. 2005. Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape. Nature. 435:488-490.
24. Müller F. 1879. Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Proc Entomol Soc Lond. 1879:xx-xxiv.
25. Pinheiro C. 2003. Does Mullerian mimicry work in nature? Experiments with butterflies and birds. Biotropica. 35:356-364.
26. Poulton EB. 1890. The colours of animals. Their meaning and use. Especially considered in the case of insects. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co, Ltd.
27. Roper TJ. 1993. Effects of novelty on taste-avoidance learning in chicks. Behaviour. 125:265-281.
28. Roper TJ, Redston S. 1987. Conspicuousness of distasteful prey affects the strength and durability of one-trial avoidance learning. Anim Behav. 35:739-747.
29. Rowe C, Lindström L, Lyytinen A. 2004. The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:407-413.
30. Rowland HM, Ihalainen E, Lindström L, Mappes J, Speed MP. 2007. Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature. 448:64-67.
31. Sexton OJ, Hoger C, Ortleb E. 1966. Anolis carolinensis: effects of feeding on reaction to aposematic prey. Science. 153:1140.
32. Sherratt TN. 2003. State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey. Oikos. 103:93-100.
33. Sherratt TN, Rashed A, Beatty CD. 2004. The evolution of locomotory behaviour in profitable and unprofitable simulated prey. Oecologia. 138:143-150.
34. Sherratt TN, Speed MS, Ruxton GD. 2004. Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J Theor Biol. 228:217-226.
35. Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D. 2001. The geometric analysis of nutrient-allelochemical interactions: a case study using locusts. Ecology. 82:422-439.
36. Skelhorn J, Rowe C. 2006a. Predator avoidance learning of prey with secreted or stored defences and the evolution of insect defences. Anim Behav. 72:827-834.
37. Skelhorn J, Rowe C. 2006b. Prey palatability influences predator learning and memory. Anim Behav. 71:1111-1118.
38. Skelhorn J, Rowe C. 2007. Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Curr Biol. 17:1479-1483.
39. Skelhorn J, Rowe C. 2010. Birds learn to use distastefulness as a signal of toxicity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 277:1729-1734.
40. Skelhorn J, Ruxton GD. 2006. Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation. Biol Lett. 4:488-490.
41. Speed MP. 1993. Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim Behav. 45:571-580.
42. Srygley RB, Chai P. 1990. Flight morphology of neotropical butterflies-palatability and distribution of mass to the thorax and abdomen. Oecologia. 84:491-499.
43. Summers K, Clough ME. 2001. The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison from family (Dendrobatidae). Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 98:6227-6232.
44. Torregrossa A-M, Dearing MD. 2009. Nutritional toxicology of mammals: regulated intake of secondary compounds. Funct Ecol. 23:48-56.
45. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Bryant JP. 2002. Consequences of the interaction between nutrients and plant secondary metabolites on herbivory selectivity: benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos. 97:282-292.
46. Wright GA, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D, Stevenson P. 2003. Feeding behavior of the weevil, Exophthalmus iekelianus, with respect to nutrients and allelochemicals in host plant leaves. Oikos. 100:173-185.