SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4384343836> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±114 with 100 items per page.

W4384343836 endingPage "966" @default.
W4384343836 startingPage "961" @default.
W4384343836 abstract "‘My object … is to stimulate observation in a subject which will amply repay investigation, from the scientific value of the results, and the never-failing interest and charm of the inquiry.’ Edward Bagnall Poulton, 1890, page vii To avoid predation, animals have evolved a wide array of antipredator defences that include visual, acoustic, chemical, mechanical, and behavioural traits (Ruxton et al., 2018). The function of these defences can be categorized according to the phase of the predation sequence in which they operate (Endler, 1991). Prey can reduce the chance of detection through camouflage (Stevens & Merilaita, 2011) and the likelihood of being subjugated and consumed with deimatic displays (Drinkwater et al., 2022) or noxious chemical defences and warning signals (Mappes et al., 2005). The remarkable diversity of antipredator defences has generated a vast literature on the structure, function, and evolution of various defensive traits (Caro & Ruxton, 2019; Ruxton et al., 2018). One consistent finding is that prey species often have multiple, diverse defence traits (Rowe & Halpin, 2013). A major question in evolutionary biology, and the topic of this special issue is why organisms invest in several defensive mechanisms, rather than putting all their defensive resources into one highly effective “superdefence” (Kikuchi et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2019). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain evolution of multiple defence strategies and the specific combinations of defences. For example, some prey species often contain many different types of secondary metabolites, which can be explained by these defences having synergistic effects against predators (Ottocento et al., 2022). Other prey animals deploy their multiple defensive traits either sequentially or simultaneously during the predation sequence, as a system of barriers that predators must breach before prey subjugation and consumption (Riley et al., 2022, Ruxton et al., 2018). For example, many amphibian species rely primarily on camouflage to avoid detection and expose their warning coloration to predators only after encounter (Loeffler-Henry et al., 2023). The same colour patterns can also be effective for camouflage when viewed from a distance, and at the same time act as conspicuous warning coloration close up (Barnett et al., 2017; Tullberg et al., 2005). The diversity of multiple defences may be further increased by intraspecific variation and ontogenetic changes in defence strategies (Barnett et al., 2022, Rönkä et al., 2020). Multiple defences might also target alternative types of predators (Raška et al., 2023; Rojas et al., 2017), and different predator communities may select for different combinations of defences (Kikuchi et al., 2021). The papers in this special issue focus on the different explanations for the evolution of multiple antipredator defences. They are arranged into four broad themes: (1) trade-offs and synergies among multiple defensive traits, (2) predator cognition and behaviour, (3) intraspecific variation in antipredator defences, and (4) phylogenetic comparisons and community ecology. Together, the papers in this special issue illustrate the diversity of current methodological approaches to study multiple defence strategies, as well as their potential limitations. The articles in this special issue also point out areas for future research and outline novel approaches and methods. In a review, Kikuchi et al. (2023) give an overview of the current work on multiple defences so that researchers interested in this topic can assess the current state of the art, including relevant conceptual frameworks and open questions. The first topic covered is resource trade-offs and functional interactions between multiple defensive traits and other, non-defensive traits. Although many of these relationships are implicit in studies of antipredator defence, they are seldom considered together, and the authors point out areas that are poorly covered, or that could produce novel work. Relevant results from across the literature are excerpted in table 1, and a much more detailed version is provided in the supplement. In the second part of their review, Kikuchi et al. (2023) describe the theoretical models that have been developed to date, guiding readers through general theoretical concepts that are assumed by most work in the field. They illustrate how these concepts can be used to develop novel theory on positive and negative interactions between defensive traits. In the third part, broad-scale ecological and evolutionary patterns in multiple defences are reviewed. Macrobiological approaches are seldom applied to multiple defences other than aposematism, and so recommendations are made for collecting data that will facilitate comparison across defensive strategies and taxa. The fourth part covers proximate mechanisms that could cause the evolution of multiple defences to deviate from theoretical expectations (or realize them), as well as experimental approaches that would help recognize them. In the fifth and final part, cognitive mechanisms of predators that could be exploited by multiple defences are discussed, with a particular emphasis on known mechanisms whose relevance in multiple defences remains to be tested. Understanding the selective forces that drive the evolution of prey defence strategies requires an integrative approach focusing on their coevolution with predator perception, cognition, and behavioural responses (Gamberale-Stille et al., 2011; Kikuchi et al., 2019; Skelhorn et al., 2016). This is particularly important in case of multiple defences, since individual defensive traits might have evolved as a result of selection by several different types of predators (Rojas et al., 2017), or they may act against one and the same predator during a single instance of attack (Kang et al., 2017; Rowe & Halpin, 2013). Interaction among multiple defences may therefore produce synergistic effects on predator cognition and behaviour and, ultimately, on prey survival (Kikuchi et al., 2023). Four articles focus on the way predators respond to multiple defensive traits and how individual components of visual and chemical multiple defences interact and affect predator behaviour. Warning signals are often multimodal (Rowe & Halpin, 2013). While multimodal signalling has been frequently studied in arthropods, we know considerably less about the occurrence and function of multimodal warning signals in vertebrates. Poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) advertise their toxicity to predators by visual (Rojas et al., 2018) and olfactory (Gonzalez et al., 2021) warning signals. Whereas the function of warning coloration against visual predators is relatively well understood, the role of volatile chemicals in deterring non-visual predators is largely unknown. Stuckert and Summers (2022) test whether a nocturnal predator with poor vision can avoid a well-defended green-and-black poison frog (Dendrobates auratus). In an important but increasingly rare type of experiment where live predators pursued live vertebrate prey, they found that cat-eyed snakes avoided poison frogs by olfactory cues. This study suggests that predators that rely on alternative sensory modalities may select for multimodality in warning signals. The paper highlights how little we know about the interactions between vertebrate species in many important experimental contexts. Ottocento et al. (2022) examine the causes and consequences of variation in chemical defences in the wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis). The wood tiger moth is an emerging model system for studying the chemical ecology of antipredator defence (e.g. Burdfield-Steel et al., 2020; Rojas et al., 2017). The wood tiger moth uses pyrazines to deter avian predators, relying on two different chemicals, the methoxypyrazines SBMP (2-sec-butyl-3-methoxypyrazine) and IBMP (2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine) (Burdfield-Steel et al., 2018; Rojas et al., 2017). Across their wide geographic range, populations of the wood tiger moth experience varying predation regimes (Rönkä et al., 2020), which may impact the intensity of selection on chemical defences. Ottocento et al. (2023) demonstrate that populations under higher levels of predation are selected for greater amounts of pyrazines and that the strength of chemical defence is influenced by genetic as well as environmental components. Furthermore, the results of their experiment with avian predators suggest non-additive effects of the two pyrazine components on predator behaviour, thereby highlighting the importance of testing the efficacy of chemical defences with ecologically relevant predators. Deimatic displays are characterized by a sudden change in prey appearance, and they usually involve exposing previously hidden bright colour markings, which is accompanied by specific movements, postures, and sounds (Drinkwater et al., 2022). This typically results in a predator startle reaction, thereby delaying or stopping the attack (Umbers et al., 2017). Although the multiple components of deimatic displays are usually deployed together, this is not necessarily always the case, and it is therefore important to assess what role particular components play in the complex display, and how they affect predator response. Hernández et al. (2023) address this question in the Colombian four-eyed frog (Pleurodema brachyops). Reporting the results of an extensive field experiment using clay models, the authors do not find evidence to support the hypothesis that the eyespots and defensive posture have an additive effect on the protection of frogs against avian predators. Instead, the two defensive traits may have different effects, with the eyespots reducing the overall number of attacks, and the defensive posture redirecting the attacks away from the frog's head. The study of Hernández et al. (2023) highlights the importance of taking prey behaviour into account for understanding how individual components of multiple defences interact to affect predator response and also points out a methodological caveat that concerns low overall frequencies of predator attacks on clay models in field experiments. Deimatic displays often involve bright patches of colour being suddenly exposed during the approach or subjugation stages of the predation sequence (Endler, 1991) by prey that are otherwise cryptic (Drinkwater et al., 2022). Prey may rely on crypsis or other types of camouflage to avoid detection, and then deploy deimatism when this strategy appears to fail. It has heretofore been unclear whether deimatic prey benefit from crypsis and warning signals in sequence, or whether the sudden revealing of bright colour patches in previously cryptic prey is more important. Riley et al. (2022) provide evidence that when the chemically defended mountain katydid's bright colours are constantly displayed, they provide no benefit in deterring predators – in fact, they appear to have slightly higher attack rates than other phenotypes. Experiments to quantify the effects of novelty and increased conspicuousness suggest it is unlikely that these factors contribute to higher predation rates on mountain katydids displaying bright colours. Predator naïveté about katydids also seems unlikely, as experiments were conducted in the autumn when predators would have had ample opportunity to learn about these abundant insects. Riley et al. (2022) suggest that mountain katydids may be somewhat profitable and that their bright colours may not be aposematic. Instead, they hypothesize that the sudden display of bright colours (i.e., a sudden transition from crypsis to conspicuousness) may underpin any adaptive value of deimatism in the mountain katydid. Their study illustrates the importance of considering multiple prey defences in the same study to better understand their function. Not only do prey frequently possess multiple lines of antipredator defence, but defensive traits and their combinations can also vary within a particular prey species. The variation may take different forms, from ontogenetic changes in the type of defence (Booth, 1990) to differences between conspecific individuals (Petschenka et al., 2022) and populations (Rönkä et al., 2020; Zvereva et al., 2018). Variation in defences among individuals and populations may be caused by several factors including selection by different predators (Fabricant & Herberstein, 2015, Nokelainen et al., 2014) and the availability of resources for defence acquisition (Agrawal, 2011; Saporito et al., 2006). Three articles in this special issue focus on intraspecific variation in defence and its effects on prey protection against predators. The change in antipredator defence during ontogeny may be connected to different potential predators over the life cycle of the prey. Raška et al. (2023) test this hypothesis by comparing the reactions of two types of predators – spiders and birds – to larvae and adults of two true bug species, Oxycarenus hyalinipennis and O. lavaterae (Heteroptera: Oxycarenidae) that have evolved life-stage-specific chemical defences. The spiders were deterred by the defences of adult bugs, but not the larval defences, whereas birds attacked the larvae considerably less often than the adult bugs. Their paper shows the importance of testing responses of different types of predators to understand changes in defences over development. In cases where the ontogenetic change in antipredator strategy is connected with increasing body size, the switch is usually from camouflage in smaller individuals to warning signalling in larger ones (Grant, 2007), probably due to size-dependent effectiveness of camouflage (Pembury Smith & Ruxton, 2021). In contrast to this, Barnett et al. (2022) report the ontogenetic change from aposematism to camouflage in the gold-striped frog (Lithodytes lineatus). Based on a combination of visual modelling of potential avian predators and a detection experiment using human participants, their results show that the colour patterns of smaller frogs are more contrasting and also easier to detect than the coloration of larger individuals. Since one of the explanations for this change in the visual defence strategy is size-dependent mimicry, with smaller individuals participating in the mimetic ring of similarly coloured frog species, this article also points out the importance of studying antipredator defences in the broader context of the prey community. Predation occurs not only among different species but also among conspecifics (Polis, 1981). Attacks from conspecifics can occur not only for nutritional gain but also for reducing competition. While most studies of anti-predator defences have been focused on their effect on heterospecific predators, threats from conspecifics can pose a serious danger to individuals, thus natural selection is likely to select for defences that reduce the chance of intraspecific predation. Vijendravarma (2022) summarizes the types of intraspecific predation and defences against them. Intraspecific predation is classified based on which developmental stages or taxa/individuals are subjected to predation: eggs, juveniles, mammalian infants, quiescent individuals, adults, sexual partners, mother (by her offspring), or offspring (by their parents). Vijendravarma (2022) explains various anti-predator strategies against each intraspecific predation type and presents whether the intraspecific defences also deter interspecific predators. This review highlights the differences and similarities between intraspecific and intraspecific predation and poses a question as to whether the same defence is used for both intra- and inter-specific predation. The evolution of antipredator defences cannot be understood without applying a broader comparative approach and considering the defences of a particular prey species in the context of prey and predator communities. Application of phylogenetic comparative methods allows for reconstructing the evolution of defensive traits in given animal taxa (Loeffler-Henry et al., 2023; Motyka et al., 2021) and testing hypotheses about correlated evolution among multiple defensive traits and between defences and other aspects of species biology. For instance, the results of comparative phylogenetic analysis support the relationship between prey body size and the evolution of various antipredator defences including eyespots (Hossie et al., 2015) and hidden colour signals (Loeffler-Henry et al., 2019). At the same time, antipredator defences of a particular prey species should be considered in the context of entire prey and predator communities. For example, diversity of prey communities may affect mimetic accuracy, with imperfect mimics being more likely to occur in phenotypically diverse prey communities than in simple ones (Beatty et al., 2004; Kikuchi et al., 2019). Likewise, predator communities dominated by foraging specialists may select for different types and combinations of antipredator defences than communities dominated by generalist predators (Kikuchi et al., 2021; Pekár et al., 2011). Hwang et al. (2023) combine a comparative phylogenetic analysis with a field predation experiment to test for the potential association between countershading and body size in caterpillars. Countershading, which consists of a coloration gradient between darker dorsal and lighter ventral prey surfaces (Cott, 1940), is widespread across animal taxa, and recent experimental studies support its function in improving visual camouflage (Penacchio et al., 2018; Rowland et al., 2008). Hwang et al. (2023) tested the hypothesis that countershading coloration may be more likely to evolve in caterpillars of larger lepidopteran species, since large body size can increase the countershading effect and/or because larger insects usually experience higher predation risk (Penney et al., 2012). Contrary to their predictions, Hwang et al. (2023) did not find strong support for the association between countershading and body size in caterpillars. Instead, their results suggest that the evolution of countershading in lepidopteran larvae may be affected by light conditions in species-specific habitats (Allen et al., 2012) and/or limited to leaf-resembling species. From the methodological point of view, the study highlights the importance of combining comparative phylogenetic approaches with experiments testing the effectiveness of defences against relevant predators. Ecology and economics, despite being two distinct fields, share some conceptual parallels. In consequence, theories and frameworks of economics have been accepted and utilized by behavioural ecologists. The examples include the adoption of a cost–benefit approach in economic decision-making to optimal foraging theory (Monteiro et al., 2013) and the use of trade and markets perspective on cooperation in biology (Hammerstein & Noë, 2016). Burdfield-Steel and Burdfield (2023) introduce the potential application of marketing theories to predator–prey interactions – predators as consumers and prey as products – and its impact on prey community structure. Particularly, the authors consider the case of predator responses to aposematic prey. To gain nutrition (product) from aposematic prey, predators have to overcome prey defences (paying the price). Defended prey advertise predators' cost using warning signals (promotion) to not be eaten. All these events occur in a community (marketing place). The authors discuss how this framework can be applied to address biological phenomena such as mimicry and social information transfer among predators on prey defences. The fitness landscape of a combination of nutrition and defence in prey parallels with quality- and price-dependent positioning of products in marketing. The study of Burdfield-Steel and Burdfield (2023) sheds light on the similarity between consumer and predator decision-making and highlights a connection between a marketing principle and biological circumstances. Despite the recent interest in multimodal communication across various biological contexts (Halfwerk et al., 2019; Munoz & Blumstein, 2012; Partan & Marler, 2005) including predator–prey interactions (Kikuchi et al., 2023; Rowe & Halpin, 2013), there are still many areas, where further research is needed to get a better insight into proximate and ultimate factors that drive the evolution of multiple antipredator defences. Specifically, future theoretical and empirical studies should focus on different types of trade-offs and synergies among multiple defensive traits and between antipredator defences and other life history traits. Because prey defences are ultimately under selection by predators, experiments testing the effectiveness of individual defensive traits and their combinations are necessary for a better understanding of the mechanisms by which multiple defences interact and target predator perception and cognition. At the same time, studies using natural settings and different types of relevant predators are critical for the assessment of prey survival in the wild, and for testing the effects of predator community structure on the evolution of multiple defences. Another area that requires further research is the intraspecific variation in defences, in particular the ontogenetic changes in defence strategies. Future work should also focus on large-scale comparative phylogenetic studies to better assess how broadly the scenarios of multiple defence evolution found in a particular animal group can be generalized. Finally, studies of antipredator defence may benefit from conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches used in other fields, e.g. cognitive neuroscience and marketing. Alice Exnerová: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (equal). Changku Kang: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). Hannah M. Rowland: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). David W. Kikuchi: Conceptualization (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). We would like to thank all the authors for their contributions to this special issue, and all the reviewers involved. We also thank all participants of the 2021 ESEB satellite symposium ‘Evolution of multiple prey defences: from predator cognition to community ecology’ for sharing their ideas and research during the online meeting and for the wonderfully enthusiastic atmosphere and inspiring discussions across many time zones. Special thanks to ESEB for giving their support to our online symposium and to Nicola Cook, Luke Holman and Max Reuter for their coordination and support in the preparation of this special issue. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript. The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/jeb.14196." @default.
W4384343836 created "2023-07-15" @default.
W4384343836 creator A5014787200 @default.
W4384343836 creator A5016920715 @default.
W4384343836 creator A5039256046 @default.
W4384343836 creator A5085478051 @default.
W4384343836 date "2023-07-01" @default.
W4384343836 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
W4384343836 title "Evolution of multiple prey defences: From predator cognition to community ecology" @default.
W4384343836 cites W1523400767 @default.
W4384343836 cites W1606082431 @default.
W4384343836 cites W1973688186 @default.
W4384343836 cites W1974837330 @default.
W4384343836 cites W1977944540 @default.
W4384343836 cites W1985297429 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2009643534 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2057405767 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2063302149 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2070032767 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2082625426 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2091910101 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2109047372 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2130286696 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2135921619 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2147788346 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2149559668 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2164886771 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2165204936 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2168290846 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2176910270 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2225603329 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2301021961 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2607279164 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2625916563 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2759514395 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2787202414 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2791403115 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2808249914 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2809565156 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2913428979 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2938273668 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2939850823 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2941951588 @default.
W4384343836 cites W2942257575 @default.
W4384343836 cites W3083049126 @default.
W4384343836 cites W3128668861 @default.
W4384343836 cites W3167848617 @default.
W4384343836 cites W3193985972 @default.
W4384343836 cites W3332901 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4210439496 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4253395936 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4290830787 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4292678034 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4307623931 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4310954075 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4312095370 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4319216387 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4321612528 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4327550275 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4381470024 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4382139073 @default.
W4384343836 cites W4383761219 @default.
W4384343836 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14196" @default.
W4384343836 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37449469" @default.
W4384343836 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
W4384343836 type Work @default.
W4384343836 citedByCount "0" @default.
W4384343836 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W4384343836 hasAuthorship W4384343836A5014787200 @default.
W4384343836 hasAuthorship W4384343836A5016920715 @default.
W4384343836 hasAuthorship W4384343836A5039256046 @default.
W4384343836 hasAuthorship W4384343836A5085478051 @default.
W4384343836 hasBestOaLocation W43843438361 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C110872660 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C126831891 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C135811302 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C173656711 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C188382862 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C4590074 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
W4384343836 hasConcept C96857902 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C110872660 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C126831891 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C135811302 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C173656711 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C188382862 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C18903297 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C4590074 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C78458016 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C86803240 @default.
W4384343836 hasConceptScore W4384343836C96857902 @default.
W4384343836 hasIssue "7" @default.
W4384343836 hasLocation W43843438361 @default.
W4384343836 hasLocation W43843438362 @default.
W4384343836 hasOpenAccess W4384343836 @default.
W4384343836 hasPrimaryLocation W43843438361 @default.