Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorHalpin, Christina G.
dc.contributor.authorSkelhorn, John
dc.contributor.authorRowe, Candy
dc.contributor.authorRuxton, Graeme D.
dc.contributor.authorHigginson, Andrew D.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-25T12:30:12Z
dc.date.available2017-01-25T12:30:12Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-03
dc.identifier.citationHalpin , C G , Skelhorn , J , Rowe , C , Ruxton , G D & Higginson , A D 2017 , ' The impact of detoxification costs and predation risk on foraging : implications for mimicry dynamics ' , PLoS One , vol. 12 , no. 1 , e0169043 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169043en
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 249000909
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 156fd55c-9b33-4266-a992-9f306633baa5
dc.identifier.otherRIS: urn:3299BBF71EA19C4EFDE93C9863C5EF1E
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85008210818
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-8943-6609/work/60427470
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000391612300097
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/10172
dc.descriptionThis work was supported by the European Research Council (Advanced Grant 250209 to Alasdair Houston), a Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellowship (NE/L011921/1) awarded to A.D.H., a BBSRC-NERC project grant (BB/G00188X/1) awarded to J.S., C.R. and G.D.R. and a faculty fellowship awarded to C.G.H. (Medical Sciences, Newcastle University) with strategic support funding from the Wellcome Trust.en
dc.description.abstractPrey often evolve defences to deter predators, such as noxious chemicals including toxins. Toxic species often advertise their defence to potential predators by distinctive sensory signals. Predators learn to associate toxicity with the signals of these so-called aposematic prey, and may avoid them in future. In turn, this selects for mildly toxic prey to mimic the appearance of more toxic prey. Empirical evidence shows that mimicry could be either beneficial (‘Mullerian’) or detrimental (‘quasi-Batesian’) to the highly toxic prey, but the factors determining which are unknown. Here, we use state-dependent models to explore how tri-trophic interactions could influence the evolution of prey defences. We consider how predation risk affects predators’ optimal foraging strategies on aposematic prey, and explore the resultant impact this has on mimicry dynamics between unequally defended species. In addition, we also investigate how the potential energetic cost of metabolising a toxin can alter the benefits to eating toxic prey and thus impact on predators’ foraging decisions. Our model predicts that both how predators perceive their own predation risk, and the cost of detoxification, can have significant, sometimes counterintuitive, effects on the foraging decisions of predators. For example, in some conditions predators should: (i) avoid prey they know to be undefended, (ii) eat more mildly toxic prey as detoxification costs increase, (iii) increase their intake of highly toxic prey as the abundance of undefended prey increases. These effects mean that the relationship between a mimic and its model can qualitatively depend on the density of alternative prey and the cost of metabolising toxins. In addition, these effects are mediated by the predators’ own predation risk, which demonstrates that, higher trophic levels than previously considered can have fundamental impacts on interactions among aposematic prey species.
dc.format.extent18
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS Oneen
dc.rights© 2017 Halpin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subjectBF Psychologyen
dc.subjectDASen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.subject.lccBFen
dc.titleThe impact of detoxification costs and predation risk on foraging : implications for mimicry dynamicsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169043
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record