Parental phenotype not predator cues influence egg warning coloration and defence levels

Paul, Sarah Catherine; Stevens, Martin; Pell, J. K.; Birkett, Michael A.; Blount, Jonathan D.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.014

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and ladybird beetle (Adalia bipunctata) females altered timing of egg laying and total egg number under conditions of simulated predation risk. [58][59][60] Similarly, we found that female Q-flies laid fewer eggs when predators were present. The reduction of total number of eggs laid by females at the end of experimental period could either be due to the reduction of females due to predation or due to females altering their egg-laying behaviour.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…For example, fruit fly ( Drosophila sp.) and ladybird beetle (Adalia bipunctata) females altered timing of egg laying and total egg number under conditions of simulated predation risk . Similarly, we found that female Q‐flies laid fewer eggs when predators were present.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The presence of predators is known to influence the egg‐laying behaviour of a number of prey species . For example, fruit fly ( Drosophila sp.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It would be intriguing if Q‐fly females can sense the presence of predators and reproduce earlier in response to the threat. However, this observation needs to be studied further to make any conclusions on Q‐fly strategic egg laying under predation pressure, as has been shown in two‐spot ladybird, A. bipunctata females, which alter the timing of egg laying in the presence of predators to avoid eggs being eaten …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of predators is known to influence the egg-laying behaviour of a number of prey species. [58][59][60] For example, fruit fly (Drosophila sp.) and ladybird beetle (Adalia bipunctata) females altered timing of egg laying and total egg number under conditions of simulated predation risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effect of natural predators on Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) control by sterile insect technique (SIT)

Rathnayake

Lowe

Rempoulakis

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Queensland fruit fly (Q‐fly) is a destructive insect pest that infests a wide variety of agricultural plants in Australia. The sterile insect technique (SIT) is used to manage Q‐flies, but the effectiveness of SIT has not been tested in the presence of natural predators. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of natural predators and SIT on the survival and reproduction of laboratory reared Q‐flies under semi‐natural conditions. We altered the presence of predators and irradiated Q‐fly males, and measured survival, number of eggs laid and egg‐hatching rate. RESULTS The presence of natural predators significantly affected the survival of Q‐flies and appeared to decrease the number of eggs laid. Interestingly, we found that both sterile and fertile males were more prone to predation than females, but we found no difference among males. The presence of sterile males significantly reduced Q‐fly fertility, but the interaction of natural predators and sterile males did not significantly reduce the number of fertile eggs. CONCLUSION Our findings highlight the important role of natural predators in controlling Q‐flies together with SIT and provide a solid foundation for similar large‐scale field trials using wild counterparts. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The presence of predators is known to influence the egg‐laying behaviour of a number of prey species . For example, fruit fly ( Drosophila sp.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of natural predators on Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) control by sterile insect technique (SIT)

Rathnayake

Lowe

Rempoulakis

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Meta-analytic evidence for quantitative honesty in aposematic signals

White

Umbers

2021

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The combined use of noxious chemical defences and conspicuous warning colours is a ubiquitous anti-predator strategy. That such signals advertise the presence of defences is inherent to their function, but their predicted potential for quantitative honesty—the positive scaling of signal salience with the strength of protection—is the subject of enduring debate. Here, we systematically synthesized the available evidence to test this prediction using meta-analysis. We found evidence for a positive correlation between warning colour expression and the extent of chemical defences across taxa. Notably, this relationship held at all scales; among individuals, populations and species, though substantial between-study heterogeneity remains unexplained. Consideration of the design of signals revealed that all visual features, from colour to contrast, were equally informative of the extent of prey defence. Our results affirm a central prediction of honesty-based models of signal function and narrow the scope of possible mechanisms shaping the evolution of aposematism. They suggest diverse pathways to the encoding and exchange of information, while highlighting the need for deeper knowledge of the ecology of chemical defences to enrich our understanding of this widespread anti-predator adaptation.

show abstract

Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aposematic theory has historically predicted that predators should select for warning signals to converge on a single form, as a result of frequency‐dependent learning. However, widespread variation in warning signals is observed across closely related species, populations and, most problematically for evolutionary biologists, among individuals in the same population. Recent research has yielded an increased awareness of this diversity, challenging the paradigm of signal monomorphy in aposematic animals. Here we provide a comprehensive synthesis of these disparate lines of investigation, identifying within them three broad classes of explanation for variation in aposematic warning signals: genetic mechanisms, differences among predators and predator behaviour, and alternative selection pressures upon the signal. The mechanisms producing warning coloration are also important. Detailed studies of the genetic basis of warning signals in some species, most notably Heliconius butterflies, are beginning to shed light on the genetic architecture facilitating or limiting key processes such as the evolution and maintenance of polymorphisms, hybridisation, and speciation. Work on predator behaviour is changing our perception of the predator community as a single homogenous selective agent, emphasising the dynamic nature of predator–prey interactions. Predator variability in a range of factors (e.g. perceptual abilities, tolerance to chemical defences, and individual motivation), suggests that the role of predators is more complicated than previously appreciated. With complex selection regimes at work, polytypisms and polymorphisms may even occur in Müllerian mimicry systems. Meanwhile, phenotypes are often multifunctional, and thus subject to additional biotic and abiotic selection pressures. Some of these selective pressures, primarily sexual selection and thermoregulation, have received considerable attention, while others, such as disease risk and parental effects, offer promising avenues to explore. As well as reviewing the existing evidence from both empirical studies and theoretical modelling, we highlight hypotheses that could benefit from further investigation in aposematic species. Finally by collating known instances of variation in warning signals, we provide a valuable resource for understanding the taxonomic spread of diversity in aposematic signalling and with which to direct future research. A greater appreciation of the extent of variation in aposematic species, and of the selective pressures and constraints which contribute to this once‐paradoxical phenomenon, yields a new perspective for the field of aposematic signalling.

show abstract

Parental phenotype not predator cues influence egg warning coloration and defence levels

Cited by 7 publications

References 85 publications

Effect of natural predators on Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) control by sterile insect technique (SIT)

Effect of natural predators on Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) control by sterile insect technique (SIT)

Meta-analytic evidence for quantitative honesty in aposematic signals

Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About