Mimicry for all modalities

Dalziell, Anastasia H.; Welbergen, Justin A.

doi:10.1111/ele.12602

Cited by 73 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The evolution of mimicry assumes the adaptive resemblance of the mimic to the model in one or more sensory modalities of the predator (Dalziell and Welbergen 2016). In some systems, merely superficial similarity can provide substantial protection for the undefended species through imperfect mimicry (Edmunds 2000; Sherratt 2002; Lindström et al 2004; Penney et al 2012), which may result from relaxed selection in the mimics to resemble the models (Kikuchi and Pfennig 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A matter of proportion? Associational effects in larval anuran communities under fish predation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Batesian mimicry, a species lacking defences against predators benefits from mimicking the aposematic signal of a defended species, while the model may incur the costs of reduced defensive efficacy. Similar reciprocal indirect effects may emerge even when the signal is not mimicked; termed associational effects, such interactions are well known in plants sharing herbivores but have received little attention in animal studies. We investigated associational interactions in a system where unequally defended prey (chemically defended Bufo bufo and undefended Rana temporaria tadpoles), sharing general morphology but not an aposematic signal, were exposed to predation by the carp Cyprinus carpio along a gradient of relative prey abundance. In the absence of fish, the assemblage composition had no effect on the survival of Rana, while that of Bufo decreased with increasing abundance of Rana. Fish reduced the survival of tadpoles from both species. However, increased relative abundance of Bufo in the community led to enhanced survival in both Bufo and Rana. Increasing relative proportions of heterospecifics reduced metamorph mass only in Bufo, indicating greater sensitivity to interspecific competition compared to Rana; the effect was reduced in the presence of fish. Our results show that undefended non-mimetic prey enjoy reduced predation with increasing relative abundance of chemically defended prey, which in turn suffer greater mortality with an increasing proportion of the undefended species. Associational resistance/susceptibility, driven by current assemblage composition, not by selection for resemblance, can shape the dynamics of mixed communities of defended and undefended prey in the absence of mimicry.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A matter of proportion? Associational effects in larval anuran communities under fish predation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the previous section, we placed primary emphasis on the costs and benefits (whether selection is negative or positive) that arise due to the perceived resemblance between mimic and model. We focussed on costs and benefits because these dictate how resemblance may affect the direction of selection on key traits involved in mimicry: resemblance and perception (Figs and , Table ; see also Anderson et al ., ; Dalziell & Welbergen, ). For example, in butterflies that resemble one another, costs should select for decreased similarity between models and mimics, while benefits should select for increased similarity (Joron & Iwasa, ).…”

Section: Visualizing Selection Responses Associated With Mimicrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While its taxonomic replicability has cemented mimicry as an outstanding exemplar of natural selection (Joron & Mallet, 1998), many authors pointed out that its pervasiveness has also allowed a siloed and often taxonomically compartmentalized study approach (e.g. Vane-Wright, 1976;Dalziell & Welbergen, 2016;Johnson & Schiestl, 2016;Jamie, 2017).…”

Section: Classifications Of Mimicrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mimics consequently benefit by their resemblance to the models whenever receivers treat them and the models in a similar way. Following previous authors, we refer to the three protagonists as the mimic, model and receiver (Wickler, ; Vane‐Wright, ; Pasteur, ; Dalziell & Welbergen, ). These two contrasting examples of classic butterfly mimicry highlight the possibility of differences in the selective pressures underpinning them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Natural selection in mimicry

Anderson

Jager

2019

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological mimicry has served as a salient example of natural selection for over a century, providing us with a dazzling array of very different examples across many unrelated taxa. We provide a conceptual framework that brings together apparently disparate examples of mimicry in a single model for the purpose of comparing how natural selection affects models, mimics and signal receivers across different interactions. We first analyse how model–mimic resemblance likely affects the fitness of models, mimics and receivers across diverse examples. These include classic Batesian and Müllerian butterfly systems, nectarless orchids that mimic Hymenoptera or nectar‐producing plants, caterpillars that mimic inert objects unlikely to be perceived as food, plants that mimic abiotic objects like carrion or dung and aggressive mimicry where predators mimic food items of their own prey. From this, we construct a conceptual framework of the selective forces that form the basis of all mimetic interactions. These interactions between models, mimics and receivers may follow four possible evolutionary pathways in terms of the direction of selection resulting from model–mimic resemblance. Two of these pathways correspond to the selective pressures associated with what is widely regarded as Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. The other two pathways suggest mimetic interactions underpinned by distinct selective pressures that have largely remained unrecognized. Each pathway is characterized by theoretical differences in how model–mimic resemblance influences the direction of selection acting on mimics, models and signal receivers, and the potential for consequent (co)evolutionary relationships between these three protagonists. The final part of this review describes how selective forces generated through model–mimic resemblance can be opposed by the basic ecology of interacting organisms and how those forces may affect the symmetry, strength and likelihood of (co)evolution between the three protagonists within the confines of the four broad evolutionary possibilities. We provide a clear and pragmatic visualization of selection pressures that portrays how different mimicry types may evolve. This conceptual framework provides clarity on how different selective forces acting on mimics, models and receivers are likely to interact and ultimately shape the evolutionary pathways taken by mimetic interactions, as well as the constraints inherent within these interactions.

show abstract

“…Mimicry occurs in several organisms, including some flowering plants. Mimics can mimic signals or cues in several ecological contexts, including the attraction of pollinators (Dalziell & Welbergen, ). In deceptive systems, as found in some plant species, flowers signal the presence of a resource without providing it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balearic lizards use chemical cues from a complex deceptive mimicry to capture attracted pollinators

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deceptive flowers from several plant species emit odors that mimic oviposition cues and attract female insects seeking for a laying site. Helicodiceros muscivorus is a species that emits an odor mimicking the foul smell of rotting meat and thereby attracts blowflies that usually oviposit on carcasses but are deceived into pollinating the plant. Thus, H. muscivorus is a striking case of pollination by brood‐site deception. The Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi, exhibits remarkable interactions with dead horse arum. Balearic lizards, which sometimes forage on carcasses, are attracted to blooming dead horse arum. We showed experimentally that P. lilfordi can detect chemical cues from carcasses on cotton swabs and exhibits elevated tongue‐flick rates to carcass chemical cues compared to control stimuli. Lizards also detected and located hidden carcasses using only airborne chemical cues. The responses of lizards to chemical cues from the spadix of blooming dead horse arum were qualitatively and quantitatively similar to those to carcass odors. Therefore, the decay‐like odor that attracts blowflies for the plant's benefit also attracts lizards. This attraction may initially have been somewhat favorable for lizards that eat blowflies, but slightly unfavorable for plants because the lizards ate some pollinators. We suggest that lizards attracted by odor may have learned later to use the plant for thermoregulation and then consume its fruits, making the association more positive for lizards and benefitted arum by seed dispersal.

show abstract

Mimicry for all modalities

Cited by 73 publications

References 101 publications

A matter of proportion? Associational effects in larval anuran communities under fish predation

A matter of proportion? Associational effects in larval anuran communities under fish predation

Natural selection in mimicry

Balearic lizards use chemical cues from a complex deceptive mimicry to capture attracted pollinators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About