The evolution of aggregation in profitable and unprofitable prey

Beatty, Christopher D.; Bain, Roderick S.; Sherratt, Thomas N.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.09.023

Cited by 40 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained on beak mark frequencies showed that sampling of butterflies by birds is intense -at least among the butterflies in the tiger mimicry ring -and tends to increase along the aggregation period. Previous hypothesis concerning the advantage of gregarious over isolated aposematic prey (Gagliardo & Gilford 1993;Mappes & Alatalo 1997;Riipi et al 2001;Beatty et al 2005) led us to predict that sampling by predators should decrease along the period of pocket formation, but the results obtained on birds' beak marks did not corroborate such prediction. A relatively high frequency of beak marks at the initial phase of the aggregation (August 2008) might be expected not only as a consequence of the learning process of local predators, but also by the fact that M. polymnia butterflies are very vagile (some butterflies were observed to travel almost two km in less than 24 h interval; Vasconcellos-Neto, pers.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…Notes on a butterfly pocket in central Brazil in several different ways. The aggregation of aposematic butterflies obviously increases the strength of the warning signal, allowing predators more readily associate the butterflies color pattern and unpalatability, and making the pattern more memorable, avoiding the need of future attacks on butterflies (Gagliardo & Gilford 1993;Mappes & Alatalo 1997;Riipi et al 2001;Beatty et al 2005). It is possible therefore to predict that butterflies should be more attacked by birds at initial phases of the aggregation (when local insectivorous birds are still learning to associate butterfly chemical defenses and color patterns, and the pocket population size is small), and less attacked at the final phase (when birds probably already learned to avoid the butterflies on sight and the aggregation reaches is maximum population numbers).…”

Section: Why Do the Ithomiines (Lepidoptera Nymphalidae) Aggregate? mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do the ithomiines (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) aggregate? Notes on a butterfly pocket in central Brazil

Pinheiro

Medri

Salcedo

2008

Rev. Bras. entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Section: Why Do the Ithomiines (Lepidoptera Nymphalidae) Aggregate? mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do the ithomiines (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) aggregate? Notes on a butterfly pocket in central Brazil

Pinheiro

Medri

Salcedo

2008

Rev. Bras. entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One might ask in turn how gregariousness could evolve without defence, since any group of palatable prey would simultaneously be more conspicuous and more worthwhile feeding on than a solitary prey (Beatty et al 2005). One possibility is that the aggregation of undefended prey can bring anti-predatory benefits providing there is a mechanism (such as satiation of the predator combined with a poor ability to re-locate previously attacked groups) that prevents all of a discovered group of prey from being consumed ( Turner & Pitcher 1986).…”

Section: The Evolution Of Aggregation Without Defencementioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation, defence and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship

Ruxton

Sherratt

2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a seminal contribution, Fisher argued how distastefulness could incrementally evolve in a prey species that was distributed in family groups. Many defended prey species occur in aggregations, but did aggregation facilitate the evolution of defence as Fisher proposed or did the possession of a defence allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of group living? Contemporary theory suggests that it can work both ways: pre-existing defences can make the evolution of gregariousness easier, but gregariousness can also aid the evolution of defence and warning signals. Unfortunately, the key phylogenetic analyses to elucidate the ordering of events have been hampered by the relative rarity of gregarious species, which in itself indicates that aggregation is not a pre-requisite for defence. Like the underlying theory, experimental studies have not given a definitive answer to the relative timing of the evolution of defence and aggregation, except to demonstrate that both orderings are possible. Conspicuous signals are unlikely to have evolved in the absence of a defence and aggregated undefended prey are likely to be vulnerable to predation in the absence of satiation effects. It therefore seems most likely that defence generally preceded the evolution of both aggregation and signalling, but alternative routes may well be possible.

show abstract

“…Tucker & Allen 1993;Knill & Allen 1995;Glanville & Allen 1997;Sherratt et al 2007) and good qualitative concordance has been found between the performances of birds and humans when conducting simple discriminative tasks (e.g. Dittrich et al 1993;Beatty et al 2005). If the validity of the computerbased approach can be broadly established, then it offers a rapid, cheap and ethical way to screen ideas relating to the adaptive significance of camouflage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disruptive patterning is a potentially universal camouflage technique that is thought to enhance concealment by rendering the detection of body shapes more difficult. In a recent series of field experiments, artificial moths with markings that extended to the edges of their 'wings' survived at higher rates than moths with the same edge patterns inwardly displaced. While this result seemingly indicates a benefit to obscuring edges, it is possible that the higher density markings of the inwardly displaced patterns concomitantly reduced their extent of background matching. Likewise, it has been suggested that the mealworm baits placed on the artificial moths could have created differential contrasts with different moth patterns. To address these concerns, we conducted controlled trials in which human subjects searched for computer-generated moth images presented against images of oak trees. Moths with edge-extended disruptive markings survived at higher rates, and took longer to find, than all other moth types, whether presented sequentially or simultaneously. However, moths with no edge markings and reduced interior pattern density survived better than their high-density counterparts, indicating that background matching may have played a so-far unrecognized role in the earlier experiments. Our disruptively patterned nonbackground-matching moths also had the lowest overall survivorship, indicating that disruptive coloration alone may not provide significant protection from predators. Collectively, our results provide independent support for the survival value of disruptive markings and demonstrate that there are common features in human and avian perception of camouflage.

show abstract

The evolution of aggregation in profitable and unprofitable prey

Cited by 40 publications

References 23 publications

Why do the ithomiines (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) aggregate? Notes on a butterfly pocket in central Brazil

Why do the ithomiines (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) aggregate? Notes on a butterfly pocket in central Brazil

Aggregation, defence and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship

Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About