Avian predators reject mimetic prey based on the reliability of their signal
Dall, SRX & Johnstone, RA Managing uncertainty: information and insurance in the face of famine risk. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. B 3571519-1526 (2002).
Balogh, ACV, Gamberale-Stille, G. & Leimar, O. Learning and the spectrum of mimicry: from quasi-Bates to super-Müller. Anim. Behaviour 761591-1599 (2008).
Barnett, CA, Bateson, M. & Rowe, C. Better the heck you know: Avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive. Biol. Lett. ten20140533 (2014).
Ruxton, GD, Allen, WL, Sherratt, TN & Speed, MP Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Cryptism, Aposematism, and Mimicry 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Sherratt, TN State-dependent risk taking by predators in systems with forbidden prey. Oikos 10393–100 (2003).
Sherratt, TN, Speed, MS & Ruxton, GD Natural selection on unpalatable species enforced by state-dependent foraging behavior. J. Theor. Biol. 228217–226 (2004).
Gamberale-Stille, G. & Guilford, T. Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: the sampling and discarding behavior of predators may provide a solution. proc. R. Soc. London. B 2712621–2625 (2004).
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Avian predators reject aposematic prey based on their chemical defense. Biol. Lett. 2348–350 (2006).
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Automimic frequency influences foraging decisions of avian predators on aposematic prey. Anim. Behaviour 741563-1572 (2007).
Brower, JVZ Experimental studies of mimicry. IV. The reactions of starlings to different proportions of models and mimicry. A m. Nat. 94271–282 (1960).
Huheey, JE Studies in Warning Coloring and Mimicry VIII. Further evidence for a frequency-dependent predation model. J. Herpetol. 14, 223–230 (1980).
Avery, ML Application of mimicry theory to bird damage control. J. Wildl. Managed. 491116-1121 (1985).
Nonacs, P. Foraging in a dynamic mimicry complex. A m. Nat. 126165–180 (1985).
Rowland, HM, Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J. & Speed, MP Co-imitators have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defenses. Nature 44864–67 (2007).
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Toxin loads of predators influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Running. Biol. 171479-1483 (2007).
Cheats Jones, RS, Davis, SC & Speed, MP Defense can degrade the protection of chemically defended prey. Ethology 11952–57 (2013).
Guilford, T. “Go-slow” signaling and the automimicry problem. J. Theor. Biol. 170311–316 (1994).
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. Taste rejection by predators and the evolution of palatability in prey. School behavior Sociobiol. 60550–555 (2006).
Chatelain, M., Halpin, CG, and Rowe, C. Ambient temperature influences birds’ decision to eat toxic prey. Anim. Behaviour 86733–740 (2013).
Peel, MC, Finlayson, BL & McMahon, TA Updated Köppen-Geiger climate classification world map. Hydrol. System Ground Science. 111633–1644 (2007).
Yamazaki, Y., Pagani-Núñez, E., Sota, T. & Barnett CRA The truth is in the details: predators attack aposematic prey less intensely than other types of prey. Biol. J. Linn. soc. 131, 332–343 (2020).
Valkonnen, JK et al. Variation in the abundance of predator species can result in varying selection pressure on prey signaling the warning. School. Evol. 21971-1976 (2011).
Nokelainen, O., Valkonen, J., Lindstedt, C., and Mappes, J. Changes in predator community structure alter the effectiveness of two warning signals in Arctiid butterflies. J.Anim. School. 83598–605 (2014).
Bibby, CJ, Burgess, ND, Hill, DA &. SH Bird Census Techniques (2nd Edition). (Academic Press, London, 2000).
Tsujimoto, D., Lin, C.-H., Kurihara, N. & Barnett, CRA Citizen science in the classroom: the consistency of student-collected data and its value in testing ecological hypotheses. Ornithological sciences. 1839–47 (2019).
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Software 671–48 (2015).
Rainey, C. Treatment of separation in logistic regression models. Politics. Anal. 24339–355 (2016).
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Meth. School. Evol. 4133–142 (2012).
Hothorn, T. Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometric. J 50, 346–363 (2008).
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. Ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyzes in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).
Barnett, CRA, Ringhofer, M. & Suzuki, TN Differences in predatory behavior between three bird species when attacking chemically defended and undefended prey. J. Ethol. 3929–37 (2021).
Carroll, J. & Sherratt, TN A direct comparison of the effectiveness of two anti-predator strategies under field conditions. J. Zool. 291279–285 (2013).
Krebs, CJ Ecological Methodology (2nd edition). (Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, 1999).
Oksanen, J. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2020).
R. R Core Development Team: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.Rproject.org (2017).
Marples, NM, Speed, MP & Thomas, RJ An Individual Profitability Spectrum for Understanding Predator-Prey Interactions. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1251–13 (2018).
Boyden, TC Butterfly appetite and mimicry: experiments with anoli lizards. Evolution 3073–81 (1976).
Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B. & Wiklund, C. The cost of being aposematic. An experimental study of the predation of Papilio machaon larvae by the Great Tit Parus major. Oikos 36, 267-272 (1981).
Wiklund, C. & Järvi, T. Survival of nasty insects after being attacked by naive birds: a reassessment of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36998–1002 (1982).
Pinheiro, CEG & Campos, VC Rufous-tailed Jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) play with aposematic butterflies. Ornitol. Neotrop. 241–3 (2013).
Halpin, CG & Rowe, C. The effect of disgust and visible coloration on predator post-attack rejection behavior and prey survival. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 120236-244 (2017).
Sillén-Tullberg, B. Higher survival of an aposematic than a cryptic form of an unpleasant insect. Ecology 67411–415 (1985).
Fisher, R. A. The genetic theory of natural selection (Clarenden Press, 1930).
Chai, P. Field observations and feeding experiments on responses of red-tailed jacamar butterflies in a rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 29161-189 (1986).
Wang, L.-Y., Huang, W.-S., Tang, H.-C., Huang, L.-C. & Lin, C.-P. Too Hard to Swallow: A secret secondary defense of an aposematic insect. J. Exp. Biol. 221jeb172486 (2018).
Summers, K., Speed, MP, Blount, JD & Stuckert, AMM Are aposematic signals honest? A review. I’m flying. Biol. 281583-1599 (2015).
Holen, O. H. Untangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey. proc. R. Soc. B 28020122588 (2013).
Speed, MP & Franks, DW Antagonistic evolution in an aposematic predator-prey system. Evolution 682996–3007 (2014).