4.5 Article

EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE FORM OF PREDATOR GENERALIZATION FOR APOSEMATIC SIGNALS AND MIMICRY IN PREY

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 62, Issue 11, Pages 2913-2921

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00485.x

Keywords

Generalization gradient; Mullerian mimicry; peak shift; warning signals

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. RCUK
  3. NERC [NE/F002653/1, NE/E016626/1, NE/D010500/1, NE/D010772/1]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F002653/1, NE/E016626/1, NE/D010500/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/E016626/1, NE/D010500/1, NE/F002653/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Generalization is at the heart of many aspects of behavioral ecology; for foragers it can be seen as an essential feature of learning about potential prey, because natural populations of prey are unlikely to be perfectly homogenous. Aposematic signals are considered to aid predators in learning to avoid a class of defended prey. Predators do this by generalizing between the appearance of prey they have previously sampled and the appearance of prey they subsequently encounter. Mimicry arises when such generalization occurs between individuals of different species. Our aim here is to explore whether the specific shape of the generalization curve can be expected to be important for theoretical predictions relating to the evolution of aposematism and mimicry. We do this by a reanalysis and development of the models provided in two recent papers. We argue that the shape of the generalization curve, in combination with the nature of genetic and phenotypic variation in prey traits, can have evolutionary significance under certain delineated circumstances. We also demonstrate that the process of gradual evolution of Mullerian mimicry proposed by Fisher is particularly efficient in populations with a rich supply of standing genetic variation in mimetic traits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available