Numbers, neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?

Kaczmarek, Jan M.; Kaczmarski, Mikołaj; Mazurkiewicz, Jan; Kloskowski, Janusz

doi:10.1002/ece3.6956

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 108 publications

(160 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fish predators are known to avoid unpalatable bufonid tadpoles (Voris and Bacon 1966 ; Kruse and Stone 1984 ; Lawler and Hero 1997 ), but the processes managing their recognition of prey defences remain poorly understood. The rate of predator learning and the survival of unpalatable tadpoles may depend on the relative abundance of otherwise similar but palatable prey, as well as the predator hunger levels (Nelson et al 2011 ; Kaczmarek et al 2018 ; Kaczmarek et al 2020 ; cf. Lindström et al 2004 ; Rowland et al 2010 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasingly cautious sampling, not the black colouration of unpalatable prey, is used by fish in avoidance learning

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficiency of aposematic colouration of prey is based on the innate bias or facilitation of avoidance learning of predators. In many toxic bufonids, larvae are uniformly black, which is considered a warning signal. We compared fish predation on normal (black) and ‘transient albino’ (greyish) common toad Bufo bufo tadpoles that did not differ in toxicity or activity. In a two-stage experiment, each fish was presented with tadpoles of one colour in the first trial and the other colour in a subsequent trial. While tadpoles sampled by fish were typically not ingested, some died from injuries. The attack rate did not differ between tadpole phenotypes nor trials, irrespective of which phenotype was the first exposed to the fish. However, during the second trial, the sampled tadpoles, independent of colouration, were mouthed by fish for shorter periods and tadpole mortality decreased. The duration of mouthing also declined with an increasing number of attacks during subsequent trials. We conclude that in single-species prey populations, black tadpole colouration is not a warning signal as it does not accelerate predator learning about prey unprofitability. Our results indicate that with growing experience, predators sample potentially toxic prey more cautiously. This may explain why natural selection does not eliminate aposematic morphs even if predators continuously sample conspicuous prey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasingly cautious sampling, not the black colouration of unpalatable prey, is used by fish in avoidance learning

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, predators of the ladybirds may differ in their toxicity tolerance, and thus, for a predator with lower toxin tolerance, the two‐spot mimic could be categorized as a Müllerian mimic. Predators' toxin tolerance and a mimic's toxicity may also change due to temporal and environmental factors, such as the age of the predator, predator hunger, and availability of the food that provides the toxin (Kaczmarek et al., 2020 ). Future studies may need to incorporate a more all‐inclusive approach with the combination of chemical analysis, behavioral assessments of the responses of the most significant predator, and the costs of the putative models for each system in order to better assess the degree and type of mimicry involved.…”

Section: Problematic Antipredator Defensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outstanding issues in the study of antipredator defenses

Huang,

Caro

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protective defense mechanisms are well documented across the animal kingdom, but there are still examples of antipredator defenses that do not fit easily into the current conceptualization. They either fall within the intersection of multiple mechanisms or fail to fall neatly into pre‐existing categories. Here, using Endler's predatory sequence as a framework, we identify problematic examples of antipredator defenses, separating them into protective mechanisms that are difficult to classify and those which act sequentially depending on context. We then discuss three ways of improving underlying terminological and definitional problems: (1) issues with English and polysemy, (2) overlapping aspects of similar mechanisms, and (3) unclear definitions. By scrutinizing the literature, we disentangle several opaque areas in the study of protective defense mechanisms and highlight questions that require further research. An unclear conceptual framework for protective defense mechanisms can lead to misconceptions in understanding the costs and benefits of defenses displayed by animals, while interchangeable terminologies and ambiguous definitions can hinder communication in antipredator studies.

show abstract

“…Predators' toxin tolerance and a mimic's toxicity may also change due to temporal and environmental factors, such as the age of the predator, predator hunger, and availability of the food that provides the toxin (Kaczmarek et al, 2020). Future studies may need to incorporate a more all-inclusive approach with the combination of chemical analysis, behavioral assessments of the responses of the most significant predator, and the costs of the putative models for each system in order to better assess the degree and type of mimicry involved.…”

Section: Toxin-tolerance Dependencementioning

confidence: 99%

Outstanding issues in the study of antipredator defences

Huang

Caro

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protective defence mechanisms are well documented across the animal kingdom, but there are still examples of antipredator defence that do not easily fit into the current conceptualisation. They either fall within the intersection of multiple mechanisms or fail to fit neatly into pre-existing categories. Here, using Endler’s predatory sequence as the basis of protective defence mechanism categories, we explore areas of confusion and other issues in antipredator mechanisms. We identify several problematic examples of antipredator defences and categorise them as protective mechanisms that may be difficult to classify or act sequentially depending on context. We then discuss four sections of improvement needed to resolve underlying terminological and definitional issues: (1) issues with English and polysemy, (2) expansion of definitions, (3) overlapping aspects of similar mechanisms, and (4) unclear definitions. By synthesising the literature, we disentangle several opaque areas in the study of protective defence mechanisms and highlight areas that require further research. An unclear conceptual framework in protective defence mechanisms can lead to misconceptions in understanding the function of defences displayed by animals, and the interchangeable terminologies and ambiguous definitions can hinder communication in antipredator studies.

show abstract

Numbers, neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 6 publications

References 108 publications

Increasingly cautious sampling, not the black colouration of unpalatable prey, is used by fish in avoidance learning

Increasingly cautious sampling, not the black colouration of unpalatable prey, is used by fish in avoidance learning

Outstanding issues in the study of antipredator defenses

Outstanding issues in the study of antipredator defences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About