Aggregation, defence and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship
- 23 May 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by The Royal Society in Proceedings. Biological sciences
- Vol. 273 (1600), 2417-2424
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3570
Abstract
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.This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- The evolution of aggregation in profitable and unprofitable preyAnimal Behaviour, 2005
- Surviving the change to warning colouration: density-dependent polyphenism suggests a route for the evolution of aposematismChemoecology, 2005
- Food choices of solitarious and gregarious locusts reflect cryptic and aposematic antipredator strategiesAnimal Behaviour, 2005
- Predator Mixes and the Conspicuousness of Aposematic SignalsThe American Naturalist, 2004
- Decision time and prey gregariousness influence attack probability in naı̈ve and experienced predatorsAnimal Behaviour, 2000
- The consequences of larval aggregation in the butterfly Chlosyne laciniaEcological Entomology, 1997
- Evidence for a more effective signal in aggregated aposematic preyAnimal Behaviour, 1996
- Tracking the evolution of warning signalsNature, 1996
- Why do warning-coloured prey live gregariously?Proceedings. Biological sciences, 1993
- The genetical theory of natural selectionPublished by Biodiversity Heritage Library ,1930