PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Michael P Speed

Publications and source records attributed to Michael P Speed.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

How can automimicry persist when predators can preferentially consume undefended mimics?

It is common for species that possess toxins or other defences to advertise these defences to potential predators using aposematic ("warning") signals. There is increasing evidence that within such species, there are individuals that have reduced or non-existent levels of defence but still signal. This phenomenon (generally called automimicry) has been a challenge to evolutionary biologists because of the need to explain why undefended automimics do not gain such as a fitness advantage by saving the physiological costs of defence that they increase in prevalence within the population, hence making the aposematic signal unreliable. The leading theory is that aposematic signals do not stop all predatory attacks but rather encourage predators to attack cautiously until they have identified the defence level of a specific individual. They can then reject defended individuals and consume the undefended. This theory has recently received strong empirical support, demonstrating that high-accuracy discrimination appears possible. However, this raises a new evolutionary problem: if predators can perfectly discriminate the defended from the undefended and preferentially consume the latter, then how can automimicry persist? Here, we present four different mechanisms that can allow non-trivial levels of automimics to be retained within a population, even in the extreme case where predators can differentiate defended from undefended individuals with 100% accuracy. These involve opportunity costs to the predator of sampling carefully, temporal fluctuation in predation pressure, predation pressure being correlated with the prevalence of automimicry, or developmental or evolutionary constraints on the availability of defence. These mechanisms generate predictions as to the conditions where we would expect aposematically signalling populations to feature automimicry and those where we would not.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Aposematism: what should our starting point be?

The evolution of aposematism is considered to be a major evolutionary problem because if new aposematic forms emerged in defended cryptic populations, they would face the dual problems of rarity and conspicuousness. We argue that this commonly assumed starting point might not have wide validity. We describe a novel evolutionary computer model in which prey evolve secondary defences and become conspicuous by moving widely over a visually heterogeneous habitat. Unless crypsis imposes high opportunity costs (for instance, preventing prey from efficient foraging, thermoregulation and communication), costly secondary defences are not predicted to evolve at all. However, when crypsis imposes opportunity costs, prey evolve secondary defences that facilitate raised behavioural conspicuousness as prey exploit opportunities within their environment. Optimal levels of secondary defence and of behavioural conspicuousness increase with population sizes and the costs imposed by crypsis. When prey are already conspicuous by virtue of their behaviours, the evolution of aposematic appearances (bright coloration, etc.) is much easier to explain because aposematic traits add little further costs of conspicuousness, but can bring large benefits.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2005

Warning displays in spiny animals: one (more) evolutionary route to aposematism.

To date, theoretical or laboratory simulations of aposematic evolution in prey animals have focused narrowly on internally stored chemical defense as the source of unprofitability and ignore aposematic advertisement of physical defenses such as spines (and defensive hairs, claws, etc.). This has occurred even though aposematism in spiny animals has been recognized since the 19th century. In this paper we present the first detailed theoretical consideration of aposematism in spiny animals, focusing on questions of initial evolution, costs of display, and coevolution of displays with defenses. Using an individual-based evolutionary model, we found that spines (or similar physical defenses) can easily evolve without aposematism, but when spines do evolve, aposematic displays can also easily evolve if they help to make the prey animal distinctive and if they draw attention to the physical threat. When aposematic displays evolve, they cause reduced investment in costly spines, so that, in addition to signaling unprofitability, aposematic display may enhance the cost-effectiveness of antipredator defenses (one exception to this conclusion is if the display is itself as costly as the defense). For animals with stinging spines, combining physical and chemical defense, the evolution of aposematic display may lead to reduced investment in the toxin compared to the spine. This occurs because spines act as both secondary (repellent) defenses and as primary defenses (their own visible, honest advertisement), whereas internally stored toxins only (generally) act as repellent secondary defenses. We argue that conspicuous aposematism in spines functions as an attention-getting mechanism, whereas conspicuous aposematic display in purely toxic animals may be explained by signal reliability arguments. Finally, one (more) route by which aposematism may initially evolve is by spiny rather than purely chemically defended species, spreading to species with other forms of secondary defense as the signal becomes common.

Animal Structures↗
PubMed2004

Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour.

Müllerian mimicry is typically thought to arise as a consequence of defended prey species adopting a similar way of signalling their unprofitability, thereby reducing the costs of predator education. Here we consider subsequent selection on the morphology of prey species, in the potentially lengthy period of time when predators are generally aware of the noxious qualities of their prey (and so no further learning is involved). Using a pair of stochastic dynamic programming equations which describe both the toxin burdens of a predator and its energy level, we identified the optimal state-dependent rules that maximize a predator's long-term survivorship, and examined the implications of this behaviour for the evolution of prey morphologies. When palatable prey are in short supply then those prey species which contain relatively low doses of toxins become profitable to consume by hungry predators. Under these conditions, a weakly defended prey could gain selective advantage in the post educational period by resembling a prey species which contained a higher dose of the same or different toxins, although the precise nature of the ecological relationship between model and mimic could either be mutualistic or parasitic depending on how mimic density increases when favoured by selection. Our work formally demonstrates that one does not always need to invoke educational effects to explain why two or more unpalatable species have evolved a similar appearance, or to explain why mimetic similarity among distasteful species is maintained over time. When two species contain high levels of different toxins then they may gain mutual advantage by resembling one another, not only by educating the predator as to their common unprofitability (classical Müllerian mimicry), but also by increasing predator uncertainty as to the specific kind of toxin a prey item contains.

Adaptation, Physiological↗