Evolutionary Rates of Models and Mimics in Batesian Mimicry

Nur, Uzi

doi:10.1086/282682

Cited by 84 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, Batesian mimicry at high frequencies is considered to be harmful for the model (Nur 1970;Turner 1987;Lindströ m et al 1997;but see Brower 1960) unless there is a surplus of alternative prey available (Holling 1965;Getty 1985). In our experiment, birds learned to avoid models but there was no effect of availability of alternative prey on the relative survival rates of the models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…hoverflies) rely on deception; they would (without mimicry) be profitable to a potential predator. Therefore selection acts differently in the two different mimicry systems (Fisher 1930;Nur 1970;Matthews 1977;Turner 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more unpalatable or toxic the model, the more imperfect mimics are avoided by the predator (Duncan and Sheppard 1965;Goodale and Sneddon 1977;Lindströ m et al 1997). Similarly, the mimicry is least harmful to models and more beneficial to mimics if the mimics are relatively rare (Fisher 1930;Nur 1970;Lindströ m et al 1997;but see Brower 1960) since the more common the mimic, the more unstable is the mimicry (Lea and Turner 1972;Lindströ m et al 1997). Additionally, availability of alternative prey affects the degree of similarity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Alternative Prey on the Dynamics of Imperfect Batesian and Müllerian Mimicries

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Both Batesian and Mü llerian mimicries are considered classical evidence of natural selection where predation pressure has, at times, created a striking similarity between unrelated prey species. Batesian mimicry, in which palatable mimics resemble unpalatable aposematic species, is parasitic and only beneficial to the mimics. By contrast, in classical Mü llerian mimicry the cost of predators' avoidance learning is shared between similar unpalatable comimics, and therefore mimicry benefits all parties. Recent studies using mathematical modeling have questioned the dynamics of Mü llerian mimicry, suggesting that fitness benefits should be calculated in a way similar to Batesian mimicry; that is, according to the relative unpalatability difference between co-mimics. Batesian mimicry is very sensitive to the availability of alternative prey, but the effects of alternative prey for Mü llerian dynamics are not known and experiments are rare. We designed two experiments to test the effect of alternative prey on imperfect Batesian and Mü llerian mimicry complexes. When alternative prey were scarce, imperfect Batesian mimics were selected out from the population, but abundantly available alternative prey relaxed selection against imperfect mimics. Birds learned to avoid both Mü llerian models and mimics irrespective of the availability of alternative prey. However, the rate of avoidance learning of models increased when alternative prey were abundant. This experiment suggests that the availability of alternative prey affects the dynamics of both Mü llerian and Batesian mimicry, but in different ways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Alternative Prey on the Dynamics of Imperfect Batesian and Müllerian Mimicries

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The encounter rate by the predator is increased since palatability of the mimic is associated with the signal shared with the model. This conflict between the mimic and the model is considered to be a result of natural selection acting more strongly on the mimic than on the model (Nur 1970 ;Huheey 1984 ;Turner 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The unprofitability of the model may also affect the degree of the imitation. There is also evidence that an imperfect mimic can survive if the model is highly unpalatable (Duncan & Sheppard 1965 ;Goodale & Sneddon 1977), however, nearly perfect mimicry is to the mimic's advantage as long as the mortality of the mimic is higher than that of the model (Fisher 1930 ;Nur 1970).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfect Batesian mimicry—the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model

Lindström

Alatalo

Mappes

1997

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

189

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYBatesian mimicry is the resemblance between unpalatable models and palatable mimics. The widely accepted idea is that the frequency and the unprofitability of the model are crucial for the introduction of a Batesian mimic into the prey population. However, experimental evidence is limited and furthermore, previous studies have considered mainly perfect mimicry (automimicry). We investigated imperfect Batesian mimicry by varying the frequency of an aposematic model at two levels of distastefulness. The predator encountered prey in a random order, one prey item at a time. The prey were thus presented realistically in a sequential way. Great tits (Parus major) were used as predators. This experiment, with a novel signal, supports the idea that Batesian mimics gain most when the models outnumber them. The mortalities of the mimics as well as the models were significantly dependent on the frequency of the model. Both prey types survived better the fewer mimics there were confusing the predator. There were also indications that the degree of distastefulness of the model had an effect on the survival of the Batesian mimic : the models survived significantly better the more distasteful they were. The experiment supports the most classical predictions in the theories of the origin and maintenance of Batesian mimicry.

show abstract

Mimicry

Speed

2014

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In its most general form mimicry refers to phenotypes of an organism that are adaptively modified to resemble living or nonliving components of its environments. Phenotype mimicry can be used in a number of different ways, most notably, to protect individuals against predators and other enemies. Such protective mimicry includes masquerade (copying an inanimate object in the environment), Batesian mimicry (an edible prey copies a defended prey) and Müllerian mimicry (shared warning signals between defended prey species). Phenotype mimicry may also be used aggressively, where for example, a predaceous mimic uses mimicry to hide from or to lure victims. In sexual mimicry (e.g. females look like males or vice versa), phenotype mimicry may be used to remove costs of sexual selection. In song mimicry, mimicry may be used to attract mates, to deter predation or facilitate grouping. Although mimicry is used in very diverse ways in nature, there may be similarities in the evolutionary ecology of mimetic phenotypes. A key point is that if the fitness of individual mimics increases with the number of mimics in a habitat then we may expect monomorphisms in the phenotypes; but if fitness declines as abundance increases we may anticipate the opposite. Key Concepts: Mimicry refers to phenotypes of an organism that are adaptively modified to resemble living or nonliving components of their environments. The most extensively studied forms of mimicry are those used to protect prey from predators (especially mimetic resemblance of the colour patterns of a warningly coloured animal: Batesian and Müllerian mimicries). In masquerade edible prey mimics inanimate objects in their environment (twigs and stones) to prevent predators noticing and attacking them. Nature has found many different uses for phenotype mimicry in addition to avoidance of predation (e.g. aggressive use by predators to enable predation; by nectarless flowers to attract pollinators and by sexual mimicry and vocal mimicry). Though mimicry is used in various ways there may be some common evolutionary issues; for example, how phenotype mimicry can evolve when the intermediate forms are less fit than both the original ancestral and the perfectly mimetic trait. The benefits to a mimic are likely to change with the local abundance of the mimetic phenotype in a locality. Sometimes mimics benefit when there are many present (and we expect monomorphism in mimicry). Often mimics lose benefits as the mimetic phenotype increases in abundance (in which case diversification of mimetic phenotypes may be expected). When mimicry harms another organism we may expect counteractive measures in the form of adaptive change within an organism's lifetime (by learning) or by adaptive change across generations (coevolution).

show abstract

Evolutionary Rates of Models and Mimics in Batesian Mimicry

Cited by 84 publications

References 7 publications

The Effect of Alternative Prey on the Dynamics of Imperfect Batesian and Müllerian Mimicries

The Effect of Alternative Prey on the Dynamics of Imperfect Batesian and Müllerian Mimicries

Imperfect Batesian mimicry—the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model

Mimicry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About