| Abstrakt: |
Keywords: antipredator defences; aposematism; camouflage; chemical defence; intraspecific predation; multimodal signals; ontogenetic change; predator cognition; synergy; trade-offs EN antipredator defences aposematism camouflage chemical defence intraspecific predation multimodal signals ontogenetic change predator cognition synergy trade-offs 961 966 6 07/18/23 20230701 NES 230701 I 'My object ... is to stimulate observation i I in a subject which will amply repay investigation, from the scientific value of the results, and the never-failing interest and charm of the inquiry.' i Edward Bagnall Poulton, [42], page vii INTRODUCTION To avoid predation, animals have evolved a wide array of antipredator defences that include visual, acoustic, chemical, mechanical, and behavioural traits (Ruxton et al., [50]). While most studies of anti-predator defences have been focused on their effect on heterospecific predators, threats from conspecifics can pose a serious danger to individuals, thus natural selection is likely to select for defences that reduce the chance of intraspecific predation. Likewise, predator communities dominated by foraging specialists may select for different types and combinations of antipredator defences than communities dominated by generalist predators (Kikuchi et al., [26]; Pekár et al., [36]). Theme 4: Phylogenetic comparisons and community ecology The evolution of antipredator defences cannot be understood without applying a broader comparative approach and considering the defences of a particular prey species in the context of prey and predator communities. [Extracted from the article] |
Plný text