The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Evolutionary Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society for Evolutionary Biology..
Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such "defence portfolios" that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:36 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of evolutionary biology - 36(2023), 7 vom: 26. Juli, Seite 975-991 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kikuchi, David W [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Antergy |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 17.07.2023 Date Revised 19.12.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/jeb.14192 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM358652383 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM358652383 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227134342.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/jeb.14192 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1232.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM358652383 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37363877 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kikuchi, David W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 17.07.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 19.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Evolutionary Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society for Evolutionary Biology. | ||
| 520 | |a Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such "defence portfolios" that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a antergy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a defence portfolio | |
| 650 | 4 | |a defence syndrome | |
| 650 | 4 | |a intraspecific variation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a predation sequence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a predator cognition | |
| 650 | 4 | |a secondary defences | |
| 650 | 4 | |a synergy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a trade-offs | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Allen, William L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Arbuckle, Kevin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Aubier, Thomas G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Briolat, Emmanuelle S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Burdfield-Steel, Emily R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cheney, Karen L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Daňková, Klára |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Elias, Marianne |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hämäläinen, Liisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Herberstein, Marie E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hossie, Thomas J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Joron, Mathieu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kunte, Krushnamegh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Leavell, Brian C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lindstedt, Carita |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lorioux-Chevalier, Ugo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McClure, Melanie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McLellan, Callum F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Medina, Iliana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nawge, Viraj |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Páez, Erika |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pal, Arka |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pekár, Stano |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Penacchio, Olivier |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Raška, Jan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Reader, Tom |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rojas, Bibiana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rönkä, Katja H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rößler, Daniela C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rowe, Candy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rowland, Hannah M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Roy, Arlety |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schaal, Kaitlin A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sherratt, Thomas N |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Skelhorn, John |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Smart, Hannah R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Stankowich, Ted |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Stefan, Amanda M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Summers, Kyle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Taylor, Christopher H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Thorogood, Rose |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Umbers, Kate |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Winters, Anne E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yeager, Justin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Exnerová, Alice |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of evolutionary biology |d 1995 |g 36(2023), 7 vom: 26. Juli, Seite 975-991 |w (DE-627)NLM087794160 |x 1010-061X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:36 |g year:2023 |g number:7 |g day:26 |g month:07 |g pages:975-991 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14192 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 36 |j 2023 |e 7 |b 26 |c 07 |h 975-991 | ||