Defence against multiple enemies

Poitrineau, Karine; Brown, Sam P.; Hochberg, Michael

doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00585.x

Cited by 27 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Let us define a resource trade-off between two defence strategies to occur when the employment of one strategy affects the resources available for employing the other, for example if there were a fixed defence budget to be divided between two strategies in the optimal way. A resource trade-off in defence against two enemies is considered by Pointrineau et al (2003). Such a trade-off increases the probability of strategy-blocking, but we shall show that it is not necessary for strategy-blocking to occur, and shall not include it in our models.…”

Section: Rare-enemy Effect and Strategy-blockingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evolution of Defence Portfolios in Exploiter–Victim Systems

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some organisms maintain a battery of defensive strategies against their exploiters (predators, parasites or parasitoids), while others fail to employ a defence that seems obvious. In this paper, we shall investigate the circumstances under which defence strategies might be expected to evolve. Brood parasites and their hosts provide our main motivation, and we shall discuss why the reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus has evolved an egg-rejection but not a chick-rejection strategy as a defence against the common (Eurasian) cuckoo Cuculus canorus, while the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus has evolved a chick-rejection but not an egg-rejection strategy as a defence against Horsfield's bronze-cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis. We suggest that the answers lie in strategy-blocking, where one strategy (the blocking strategy) prevents the appearance of another (the blocked strategy) that would be adaptive in its absence. This may be common in exploitervictim systems.

show abstract

Section: Rare-enemy Effect and Strategy-blockingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evolution of Defence Portfolios in Exploiter–Victim Systems

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with many other ecological systems (Poitrineau et al 2003), the selective forces of multiple predators and the relative investment in avoidance (selective recruitment), defense or tolerance of sublethal predation among bryozoan species have scarcely been investigated. We do not have robust estimates of relative abundances for different predator groups in bryozoanrich habitats or estimates of relative predation intensities.…”

Section: Avoidance Defense or Tolerance By Bryozoan Preymentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation on marine bryozoan colonies: taxa, traits and trophic groups

Lidgard¹

2008

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While bryozoans are important components of marine benthic ecosystems, their significance as food has scarcely been considered in any comparative study. An analysis of the phylogenetic range of predators on bryozoan colonies was undertaken to elucidate relationships among different consumers. Functional feeding traits and diet categories were determined from literature sources and observations for 399 predator species. Multivariate analyses were used to identify groups of species that consume similar food resources and have related functional traits corresponding to finding, acquiring and ingesting prey. These analyses distinguished gradients among trophic groups based on dissimilar feeding mechanisms, body sizes, types of locomotion and dietary breadths. Co-occurrences of certain diet categories also emerged as important factors. Trophic groups were largely consistent with species clusters at different taxonomic ranks among the predator phyla. At one extreme, fishes and decapod crustaceans with large dietary breadths and body sizes, and crushing or tearing feeding mechanisms, appear to consume bryozoans as minor or even incidental parts of their diets. At another extreme, species of nudibranchs, pycnogonids, turbellarians, and certain polychaetes, small arthropods and nematodes that consume bryozoans do so primarily or exclusively. Their body sizes are comparatively smaller and they often have piercing and suctorial feeding mechanisms. These differences are associated by inference with different probabilities of antagonistic encounters and likelihoods of lethal or sublethal predation. The analyses provide a baseline for ecological and evolutionary comparisons, and a broader context for the questions, 'Who eats bryozoans, how, and how frequently?'.

show abstract

“…Considering the reciprocal selective pressures exerted by many species leads us to take into account the specificity of virulence and resistance. Until now, few works have been devoted to this subject (but see [14]). However, when considering diffuse coevolution, there is a second level of potential asymmetry because a consumer may choose its targets, whereas targets cannot be certain which of its enemies will attack it.…”

Section: Presentation Of the Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Lapchin¹,

Guillemaud²

2005

Front Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontiers in ZoologyOpen Access HypothesisAsymmetry in host and parasitoid diffuse coevolution: when the red queen has to keep a finger in more than one pie Laurent Lapchin* and Thomas Guillemaud Address: "Biologie des Populations en Interaction", UMR 1112 "Réponse des Organismes aux Stress Environnementaux", Inra/Unsa, 400 route des Chappes, BP167 06903 Sophia-Antipolis cedex, France Email: Laurent Lapchin* -lapchin@antibes.inra.fr; Thomas Guillemaud -guillem@antibes.inra.fr * Corresponding author AbstractBackground: Coevolution between pairs of antagonistic species is generally considered an endless "arms race" between attack and defense traits to counteract the adaptive responses of the other species.Presentation of the hypothesis: When more than two species are involved, diffuse coevolution of hosts and parasitoids could be asymmetric because consumers can choose their prey whereas preys do not choose their predator. This asymmetry may lead to differences in the rate of evolution of the antagonistic species in response to selection. The more long-standing the coevolution of a given pair of antagonistic populations, the higher should be the fitness advantage for the consumer. Therefore, the main prediction of the hypothesis is that the consumer trophic level is more likely to win the coevolution race. Testing the hypothesis:We propose testing the asymmetry hypothesis by focusing on the tritrophic system plant/aphid/aphid parasitoid. The analysis of the genetic variability in the virulence of several parasitoid populations and in the defenses of several aphid species or several clones of the same aphid species could be compared. Moreover, the analysis of the neutral population genetic structure of the parasitoid as a function of the aphid host, the plant host and geographic isolation may complement the detection of differences between host and parasitoid trophic specialization. Implications of the hypothesis:Genetic structures induced by the arms race between antagonistic species may be disturbed by asymmetry in coevolution, producing neither rare genotype advantages nor coevolutionary hotspots. Thus this hypothesis profoundly changes our understanding of coevolution and may have important implications in terms of pest management.

show abstract

Defence against multiple enemies

Cited by 27 publications

References 27 publications

Evolution of Defence Portfolios in Exploiter–Victim Systems

Evolution of Defence Portfolios in Exploiter–Victim Systems

Predation on marine bryozoan colonies: taxa, traits and trophic groups

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About