Prey community structure affects how predators select for müllerian mimicry

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1736, 2012, Pages 2099-2105

  Ihalainen, Eira ^a   Rowland, Hannah M ^b,d   Speed, Michael P ^b   Ruxton, Graeme D ^c   Mappes, Johanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aposematism; Avoidance learning; Batesian mimicry; Generalization

Indexed keywords

APOSEMATISM; AVOIDANCE REACTION; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; DIET; LEARNING; MIMICRY; MORTALITY; PASSERINE; PHYLOGENETICS; SAMPLING; SIGNAL; SPECIALIST;

EID: 84859979186     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2360     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Müller, F. 1879 Ituna and Thyridia: A remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, 20-29.
2. MacDougall, A. & Dawkins, M. S. 1998 Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry. Anim. Behav. 55, 1281-1288. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0702)
3. Franks, D. W. & Noble, J. 2004 Batesian mimics influence mimicry ring evolution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 191-196. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2582)
4. Balogh, A. C. V. & Leimar, O. 2005 Müllerian mimicry: An examination of Fisher's theory of gradual evolutionary change. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 2269-2275. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2005.3227)
5. Franks, D. W. & Sherratt, T. N. 2007 The evolution of multicomponent mimicry. J. Theor. Biol. 244, 631-639. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.09.019)
6. Ruxton, G. D., Franks, D. W., Balogh, A. C. V. & Leimar, O. 2008 Evolutionary implications of the form of predator generalization for aposematic signals and mimicry in prey. Evolution 62, 2913-2921. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00485.x)
7. Flanagan, N. S., Tobler, A., Davison, A., Pybus, O. G., Kapan, D. D., Planas, S., Linares, M. & Heckel, D. 2004 Historical demography of Müllerian mimicry in the neotropical Heliconius butterflies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9704-9709. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0306243101)
8. Kronforst, M. R. & Gilbert, L. E. 2008 The population genetics of mimetic diversity in Heliconius butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 493-500. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1378)
9. Symula, R., Schulte, R. & Summers, K. 2001 Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hyphothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 2415-2421. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2001.1812)
10. Simmons, R. B. & Weller, S. J. 2002 What kind of signals do mimetic tiger moths send? A phylogenetic test of wasp mimicry systems (Lepidoptera: Ardtiidae: Euchromiini). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 983-990. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1970)
11. Marek, P. E. & Bond, J. E. 2009 A Müllerian mimicry ring in Appalachian millipedes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9755-9760. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0810408106)
12. Mallet, J. L. B. & Barton, N. H. 1989 Strong natural selection in a warning-color hybrid zone. Evolution 43, 421-431. (doi:10.2307/2409217)
13. Kapan, D. D. 2001 Three-butterfly system provides a field test of Müllerian mimicry. Nature 409, 338-340. (doi:10.1038/35053066)
14. Rowe, C., Lindström, L. & Lyytinen, A. 2004 The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 407-413. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2615)
15. Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. 2005 Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 339-345. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2953)
16. Ihalainen,E.,Lindström,L., Mappes,J.&Puolakkainen, S. 2008 Can experienced birds select for Müllerian mimicry? Behav. Ecol. 19, 362-368. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arm151)
17. Rowland, H. M., Hoogesteger, T., Ruxton, G. D., Speed, M. P. & Mappes, J. 2010 A tale of 2 signals: signal mimicry between aposematic species enhances predator avoidance learning. Behav. Ecol. 21, 851-860. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arq071)
18. Sherratt, T. N., Speed, M. P. & Ruxton, G. D. 2004 Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 228, 217-226. (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.12.009)
19. Langham, G. M. 2006 Rufous-tailed jacamars and aposematic butterflies: do older birds attack novel prey? Behav. Ecol. 17, 285-290. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arj027)
20. Kokko, H., Mappes, J. & Lindström, L. 2003 Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecol. Lett. 6, 1068-1076. (doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00532.x)
21. Beatty, C. D., Beirinckx, K. & Sherratt, T. N. 2004 The evolution of Müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities. Nature 431, 63-67. (doi:10.1038/nature02818)
22. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. 2004 The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. Evolution 58, 1294-1302. (doi:10.1554/03-271)
23. Fisher, R. A. 1958 The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd revised edn. New York, NY: Denver Publication.
24. Turner, J. R. G. 1977 Butterfly mimicry: The genetical evolution of an adaptation. Evol. Biol. 10, 163-206.
25. Huheey, J. E. 1988 Mathematical models of mimicry. Am. Nat. 131, S22-S41. (doi:10.1086/284765)
26. Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L. & Mappes, J. 2007 Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 780-791. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01234.x)
27. Mallet, J. L. B. & Gilbert, L. E. 1995 Why are there so many mimicry rings? Correlations between habitat, behaviour and mimicry in Heliconius butterflies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55, 159-180. (doi:10.1006/bijl.1995. 0034)
28. Shettleworth, S. J. 2010 Cognition, evolution and behavior, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29. Gamberale-Stille, G. & Tullberg, B. S. 1999 Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live apose-matic prey. Evol. Ecol. 13, 579-589. (doi:10.1023/ A:1006741626575)
30. Baddeley, R. J., Osorio, D. & Jones, C. D. 2007 Generalization of colors by chickens: experimental observations and a Bayesian model. Am. Nat. 169, S27-S41. (doi:10.1086/510142)
31. Mappes, J. & Alatalo, R. V. 1997 Batesian mimicry and signal accuracy. Evolution 51, 2050-2053. (doi:10.2307/ 2411028)
32. Goodale, M. A. & Sneddon, I. 1977 The effect of dis-tastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial Batesian mimics. Anim. Behav. 25, 660-665. (doi:10. 1016/0003-3472(77)90117-8)
33. Dittrich, W., Gilbert, F., Green, P., McGregor, P. & Grewcock, D. 1993 Imperfect mimicry: a pigeon's perspective. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 251, 195-200. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1993.0029)
34. Edmunds, M. 2000 Why are there good and poor mimics? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 70, 459-466. (doi:10.1111/j. 1095-8312.2000.tb01234.x)
35. Holloway, G., Gilbert, F. & Brandt, A. 2002 The relationship between mimetic imperfection and pheno-typic variation in insect colour patterns. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 411-416. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1885)
36. Johnstone, R. A. 2002 The evolution of inaccurate mimics. Nature 418, 524-526. (doi:10.1038/ nature00845)
37. Ghirlanda, S. & Enquist, M. 2003 A century of generalization. Anim. Behav. 66, 15-36. (doi:10.1006/anbe. 2003.2174)
38. Ham, A. D. & Osorio, D. 2007 Colour preferences and colour vision in poultry chicks. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 1941-1948. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0538)
39. Svádová, K., Exnerová, A., Štys, P., Landová, E., Valenta, J., Fučíková, A. & Socha, R. 2009 Role of different colours of aposematic insects in learning, memory and generalization of näi{dotless}ve bird predators. Anim. Behav. 77, 327-336. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.034)