4.6 Article

A synthesis of deimatic behaviour

期刊

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 97, 期 6, 页码 2237-2267

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/brv.12891

关键词

antipredator; defence; predator; prey; competition; cognition; behaviour; aposematism; deimatism; startle

类别

资金

  1. Hermon Slade Grant [HSF 14/3]
  2. Australian Government [DE180100026]
  3. Western Sydney University's Women's Fellowship
  4. Carer's Grant and Early Career Grant
  5. BBSRC Studentship [BB/L017709/1]
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2019R1C1C1002466]
  7. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1842166]
  8. Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award [DE180100526]
  9. Academy of Finland grant [340130]
  10. Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada [2020-07056]
  11. Australian Research Council [DE180100526, DE180100026] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review aims to summarize the current knowledge of deimatic behaviors, also known as startle behaviors, and identify gaps in understanding. The authors propose a working hypothesis and discuss the available evidence for the evolution, ontogeny, causation, and survival value of deimatic behaviors using Tinbergen's Four Questions framework. The overall goal is to guide future research by suggesting ways to address the most pressing questions in this field.
Deimatic behaviours, also referred to as startle behaviours, are used against predators and rivals. Although many are spectacular, their proximate and ultimate causes remain unclear. In this review we aim to synthesise what is known about deimatic behaviour and identify knowledge gaps. We propose a working hypothesis for deimatic behaviour, and discuss the available evidence for the evolution, ontogeny, causation, and survival value of deimatic behaviour using Tinbergen's Four Questions as a framework. Our overarching aim is to direct future research by suggesting ways to address the most pressing questions in this field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据