1
|
Kikuchi DW, Allen WL, Arbuckle K, Aubier TG, Briolat ES, Burdfield-Steel ER, Cheney KL, Daňková K, Elias M, Hämäläinen L, Herberstein ME, Hossie TJ, Joron M, Kunte K, Leavell BC, Lindstedt C, Lorioux-Chevalier U, McClure M, McLellan CF, Medina I, Nawge V, Páez E, Pal A, Pekár S, Penacchio O, Raška J, Reader T, Rojas B, Rönkä KH, Rößler DC, Rowe C, Rowland HM, Roy A, Schaal KA, Sherratt TN, Skelhorn J, Smart HR, Stankowich T, Stefan AM, Summers K, Taylor CH, Thorogood R, Umbers K, Winters AE, Yeager J, Exnerová A. The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences. J Evol Biol 2023; 36:975-991. [PMID: 37363877 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.14192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2022] [Revised: 05/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2023] [Indexed: 06/28/2023]
Abstract
Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such "defence portfolios" that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Kikuchi
- Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
- Evolutionary Biology, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
| | | | - Kevin Arbuckle
- Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Thomas G Aubier
- Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
- Laboratoire Évolution & Diversité Biologique, Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, UMR 5174, CNRS/IRD, Toulouse, France
| | | | - Emily R Burdfield-Steel
- Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karen L Cheney
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Klára Daňková
- Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marianne Elias
- Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité, CNRS, MNHN, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, Paris, France
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Gamboa, Panama
| | - Liisa Hämäläinen
- School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Marie E Herberstein
- School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Thomas J Hossie
- Department of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mathieu Joron
- CEFE, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France
| | - Krushnamegh Kunte
- National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, India
| | - Brian C Leavell
- Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
| | - Carita Lindstedt
- Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ugo Lorioux-Chevalier
- Laboratoire Écologie, Évolution, Interactions des Systèmes Amazoniens (LEEISA), Université de Guyane, CNRS, IFREMER, Cayenne, France
| | - Melanie McClure
- Laboratoire Écologie, Évolution, Interactions des Systèmes Amazoniens (LEEISA), Université de Guyane, CNRS, IFREMER, Cayenne, France
| | | | - Iliana Medina
- School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Viraj Nawge
- National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, India
| | - Erika Páez
- Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité, CNRS, MNHN, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, Paris, France
| | - Arka Pal
- National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, India
| | - Stano Pekár
- Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Olivier Penacchio
- School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
- Computer Vision Center, Computer Science Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Jan Raška
- Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Tom Reader
- School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Bibiana Rojas
- Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Biology and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Katja H Rönkä
- HiLIFE Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Programme in Organismal & Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Daniela C Rößler
- Zukunftskolleg, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
- Department of Collective Behavior, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Candy Rowe
- Institute of Biosciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Hannah M Rowland
- Max Planck Research Group Predators and Toxic Prey, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
| | - Arlety Roy
- Laboratoire Écologie, Évolution, Interactions des Systèmes Amazoniens (LEEISA), Université de Guyane, CNRS, IFREMER, Cayenne, France
| | - Kaitlin A Schaal
- Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - John Skelhorn
- Institute of Biosciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Hannah R Smart
- Hawkesbury Institute of the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ted Stankowich
- Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, California, USA
| | - Amanda M Stefan
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kyle Summers
- Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Rose Thorogood
- HiLIFE Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Programme in Organismal & Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kate Umbers
- Hawkesbury Institute of the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Science Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anne E Winters
- Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
| | - Justin Yeager
- Grupo de Biodiversidad Medio Ambiente y Salud, Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Alice Exnerová
- Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kikuchi DW, Herberstein ME, Barfield M, Holt RD, Mappes J. Why aren't warning signals everywhere? On the prevalence of aposematism and mimicry in communities. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2021; 96:2446-2460. [PMID: 34128583 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2020] [Revised: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Warning signals are a striking example of natural selection present in almost every ecological community - from Nordic meadows to tropical rainforests, defended prey species and their mimics ward off potential predators before they attack. Yet despite the wide distribution of warning signals, they are relatively scarce as a proportion of the total prey available, and more so in some biomes than others. Classically, warning signals are thought to be governed by positive density-dependent selection, i.e. they succeed better when they are more common. Therefore, after surmounting this initial barrier to their evolution, it is puzzling that they remain uncommon on the scale of the community. Here, we explore factors likely to determine the prevalence of warning signals in prey assemblages. These factors include the nature of prey defences and any constraints upon them, the behavioural interactions of predators with different prey defences, the numerical responses of predators governed by movement and reproduction, the diversity and abundance of undefended alternative prey and Batesian mimics in the community, and variability in other ecological circumstances. We also discuss the macroevolution of warning signals. Our review finds that we have a basic understanding of how many species in some taxonomic groups have warning signals, but very little information on the interrelationships among population abundances across prey communities, the diversity of signal phenotypes, and prey defences. We also have detailed knowledge of how a few generalist predator species forage in artificial laboratory environments, but we know much less about how predators forage in complex natural communities with variable prey defences. We describe how empirical work to address each of these knowledge gaps can test specific hypotheses for why warning signals exhibit their particular patterns of distribution. This will help us to understand how behavioural interactions shape ecological communities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Kikuchi
- Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Wallotstraße 19, Berlin, Germany.,Evolutionary Biology, Universität Bielefeld, Konsequez 45, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany
| | - Marie E Herberstein
- Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Wallotstraße 19, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2109, Australia
| | - Michael Barfield
- Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8525, U.S.A
| | - Robert D Holt
- Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8525, U.S.A
| | - Johanna Mappes
- Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Wallotstraße 19, Berlin, Germany.,Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.,Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kikuchi DW, Waldron SJ, Valkonen JK, Dobler S, Mappes J. Biased predation could promote convergence yet maintain diversity within Müllerian mimicry rings of Oreina leaf beetles. J Evol Biol 2020; 33:887-898. [PMID: 32202678 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13620] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Revised: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 03/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Müllerian mimicry is a classic example of adaptation, yet Müller's original theory does not account for the diversity often observed in mimicry rings. Here, we aimed to assess how well classical Müllerian mimicry can account for the colour polymorphism found in chemically defended Oreina leaf beetles by using field data and laboratory assays of predator behaviour. We also evaluated the hypothesis that thermoregulation can explain diversity between Oreina mimicry rings. We found that frequencies of each colour morph were positively correlated among species, a critical prediction of Müllerian mimicry. Predators learned to associate colour with chemical defences. Learned avoidance of the green morph of one species protected green morphs of another species. Avoidance of blue morphs was completely generalized to green morphs, but surprisingly, avoidance of green morphs was less generalized to blue morphs. This asymmetrical generalization should favour green morphs: indeed, green morphs persist in blue communities, whereas blue morphs are entirely excluded from green communities. We did not find a correlation between elevation and coloration, rejecting thermoregulation as an explanation for diversity between mimicry rings. Biased predation could explain within-community diversity in warning coloration, providing a solution to a long-standing puzzle. We propose testable hypotheses for why asymmetric generalization occurs, and how predators maintain the predominance of blue morphs in a community, despite asymmetric generalization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Kikuchi
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.,Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.,Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Samuel J Waldron
- Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.,Molecular Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Janne K Valkonen
- Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Susanne Dobler
- Molecular Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Johanna Mappes
- Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.,Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Arias M, Davey JW, Martin S, Jiggins C, Nadeau N, Joron M, Llaurens V. How do predators generalize warning signals in simple and complex prey communities? Insights from a videogame. Proc Biol Sci 2020; 287:20200014. [PMID: 32070260 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The persistence of distinct warning signals within and between sympatric mimetic communities is a puzzling evolutionary question because selection favours convergence of colour patterns among toxic species. Such convergence is partly shaped by predators' reaction to similar but not identical stimulus (i.e. generalization behaviour), and generalization by predators is likely to be shaped by the diversity of local prey. However, studying generalization behaviour is generally limited to simple variations of prey colour patterns. Here, we used a computer game played by humans as surrogate predators to investigate generalization behaviours in simple (4 morphs) and complex (10 morphs) communities of unprofitable (associated with a penalty) and profitable butterflies. Colour patterns used in the game are observed in the natural populations of unprofitable butterfly species such as Heliconius numata. Analyses of 449 game participants' behaviours show that players avoided unprofitable prey more readily in simple than in complex communities. However, generalization was observed only in players that faced complex communities, enhancing the protection of profitable prey that looked similar to at least one unprofitable morph. Additionally, similarity among unprofitable prey also reduced attack rates only in complex communities. These results are consistent with previous studies using avian predators but artificial colour patterns and suggest that mimicry is more likely to evolve in complex communities where increases in similarity are more likely to be advantageous.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mónica Arias
- Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles CP 50, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.,Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175 CNRS-Université de Montpellier, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Université Paul Valéry, 34293 Montpellier 5, France
| | - John W Davey
- Bioscience Technology Facility, Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York YO10 5DD, UK.,Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Simon Martin
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Chris Jiggins
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Nicola Nadeau
- Molecular Ecology Lab, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mathieu Joron
- Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175 CNRS-Université de Montpellier, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Université Paul Valéry, 34293 Montpellier 5, France
| | - Violaine Llaurens
- Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles CP 50, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|