scholarly journals Prey community structure affects how predators select for Müllerian mimicry

2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1736) ◽  
pp. 2099-2105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eira Ihalainen ◽  
Hannah M. Rowland ◽  
Michael P. Speed ◽  
Graeme D. Ruxton ◽  
Johanna Mappes

Müllerian mimicry describes the close resemblance between aposematic prey species; it is thought to be beneficial because sharing a warning signal decreases the mortality caused by sampling by inexperienced predators learning to avoid the signal. It has been hypothesized that selection for mimicry is strongest in multi-species prey communities where predators are more prone to misidentify the prey than in simple communities. In this study, wild great tits ( Parus major ) foraged from either simple (few prey appearances) or complex (several prey appearances) artificial prey communities where a specific model prey was always present. Owing to slower learning, the model did suffer higher mortality in complex communities when the birds were inexperienced. However, in a subsequent generalization test to potential mimics of the model prey (a continuum of signal accuracy), only birds that had foraged from simple communities selected against inaccurate mimics. Therefore, accurate mimicry is more likely to evolve in simple communities even though predator avoidance learning is slower in complex communities. For mimicry to evolve, prey species must have a common predator; the effective community consists of the predator's diet. In diverse environments, the limited diets of specialist predators could create ‘simple community pockets’ where accurate mimicry is selected for.

1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (1380) ◽  
pp. 203-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Srygley

Müllerian mimicry is a mutualism involving the evolutionary convergence of colour patterns of prey on a warning signal to predators. Behavioural mimicry presumably adds complexity to the signal and makes it more difficult for Batesian mimics to parasitize it. To date, no one has quantified behavioural mimicry in Müllerian mimicry groups. However, morphological similarities among members of mimicry groups suggested that pitching oscillations of the body and wing–beat frequency (WBF) might converge with colour pattern. I compared the morphology and kinematics of four Heliconius species, which comprised two mimicry pairs. Because the mimics arose from two distinct lineages, the relative contributions of mimicry and phylogeny to variation in the species' morphologies and kinematics were examined. The positions of the centre of body mass and centre of wing mass and wing shape diverged among species within lineages, and converged among species within mimicry groups. WBF converged within mimicry groups, and it was coupled with body pitching frequency. However, body–pitching frequency was too variable to distinguish mimicry groups. Convergence in WBF may be due, at least in part, to biomechanical consequences of similarities in wing length, wing shape or the centre of wing mass among co–mimics. Nevertheless, convergence in WBF among passion–vine butterflies serves as the first evidence of behavioural mimicry in a mutualistic context.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ombeline Sculfort ◽  
Ludovic Maisonneuve ◽  
Marianne Elias ◽  
Thomas G. Aubier ◽  
Violaine Llaurens

AbstractThe conspicuousness of colour pattern in defended species associates with a high detectability by predators, making its evolution puzzling. Müllerian mimicry, the convergence of warning coloration among defended prey species, is pervasive in communities of conspicuous prey, and mimicry switches, with mutant individuals having the same colour pattern as other co-mimetic species, may often associate with changes in conspicuousness. Yet, the implication of mimicry for the evolution of conspicuousness has not been considered. Here, we build a model describing the population dynamics of conspicuous defended prey to explore the invasion conditions of mutants that differ from other individuals by their conspicuousness. We assume that predation risk depends not only on the number of individuals sharing a given colour pattern within the population but also on the presence of co-mimetic species. We compare the evolutionary fates of mutant colour patterns (1) that are similar to the ancestral colour pattern and thus belong to the same mimicry ring (assemblage of co-mimetic species), or (2) that are different from the ancestral colour pattern and thus potentially belong to a distinct mimicry ring. Our analytical derivations show that (1) less conspicuous colour patterns are more likely to be selected within mimicry ring, and that (2) a mimicry switch lowering predation risk can promote the invasion of a more conspicuous colour pattern. We thus highlight that the variation in conspicuousness observed in the wild results not only from the characteristics of the colour pattern (detectability, salience) but also from the local composition of mimetic communities.


Author(s):  
Graeme D. Ruxton ◽  
William L. Allen ◽  
Thomas N. Sherratt ◽  
Michael P. Speed

Müllerian mimicry arises when unpalatable or otherwise unprofitable species evolve a similar appearance. While Batesian mimicry is widely considered to have evolved in palatable prey as a consequence of selection to deceive predators into believing that they are unpalatable, Müllerian mimicry is believed to have arisen as a consequence of selection to spread the burden of predator education through the adoption of a shared warning signal. Müllerian mimics are therefore considered mutualists, collectively reinforcing the protective value of their shared warning signals. We begin by discussing some examples of Müllerian mimicry that cannot be explained simply on the basis of shared ancestry. We then discuss Müller’s explanation in more depth, before presenting evidence that the shared resemblance has arisen for the reason that Müller hypothesized. Finally, we consider some of the predicted and observed properties of Müllerian mimicry systems in detail, including ecological and co-evolutionary phenomena, and consider some common questions that have only been partly resolved. We end by considering the connection between Batesian and Müllerian mimicry, arguing that like many natural systems, the nature of relationships can readily fluctuate from being parasitic to mutualistic and vice versa.


Oikos ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitta Sillén-Tullberg ◽  
Christer Wiklund ◽  
Torbjörn Järvi ◽  
Birgitta Sillen-Tullberg ◽  
Torbjorn Jarvi

Evolution ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-453
Author(s):  
P. M. Sheppard ◽  
J. R. G. Turner

2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1849) ◽  
pp. 20162080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Jamie

‘Mimicry’ is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection's power to produce stunning adaptations. However, there remains a lack of clarity over how mimetic resemblances are conceptually related to each other. The result is that categories denoting the traditional subdivisions of mimicry are applied inconsistently across studies, hindering attempts at conceptual unification. This review critically examines the logic by which mimicry can be conceptually organized and analysed. It highlights the following three evolutionarily relevant distinctions. (i) Are the model's traits being mimicked signals or cues? (ii) Does the mimic signal a fitness benefit or fitness cost in order to manipulate the receiver's behaviour? (iii) Is the mimic's signal deceptive? The first distinction divides mimicry into two broad categories: ‘signal mimicry’ and ‘cue mimicry’. ‘Signal mimicry’ occurs when mimic and model share the same receiver, and ‘cue mimicry’ when mimic and model have different receivers or when there is no receiver for the model's trait. ‘Masquerade’ fits conceptually within cue mimicry. The second and third distinctions divide both signal and cue mimicry into four types each. These are the three traditional mimicry categories (aggressive, Batesian and Müllerian) and a fourth, often overlooked category for which the term ‘rewarding mimicry’ is suggested. Rewarding mimicry occurs when the mimic's signal is non-deceptive (as in Müllerian mimicry) but where the mimic signals a fitness benefit to the receiver (as in aggressive mimicry). The existence of rewarding mimicry is a logical extension of the criteria used to differentiate the three well-recognized forms of mimicry. These four forms of mimicry are not discrete, immutable types, but rather help to define important axes along which mimicry can vary.


2008 ◽  
Vol 95 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas N. Sherratt

2013 ◽  
Vol 337 ◽  
pp. 101-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Llaurens ◽  
S. Billiard ◽  
M. Joron

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eira Ihalainen ◽  
Leena Lindström ◽  
Johanna Mappes ◽  
Sari Puolakkainen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document