Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166416›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2024

Selection for evasive mimicry imposed by an arthropod predator.

Karl Loeffler-Henry, Thomas N Sherratt

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karl Loeffler-HenryDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.
Thomas N SherrattDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0001-6837-3848
Carleton University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has long been hypothesized that a species that is relatively easy to catch by predators may face selection to resemble a species that is harder to catch. Several experiments using avian predators have since supported this 'evasive mimicry' hypothesis. However, the sudden movement of artificial evasive prey in each of the above experiments may have startled the predators, generating an avoidance response unrelated to difficulty of capture. Additionally in the above experiments the catchability of prey was all or nothing, while in nature predators may occasionally catch evasive prey or fail to catch slower species, which might inhibit learning. Here, using mantids as predators, we conducted an experimental test of the evasive mimicry hypothesis that circumvents these limitations, using live painted calyptrate flies with modified evasive capabilities as prey. We found that mantids readily learned to avoid pursuing the more evasive prey types. Warning signals based on evasiveness and their associated mimicry may be widespread phenomena in nature. These findings not only further support its plausibility but demonstrate that even arthropod predators can select for it.

Indexed as

ArthropodsBiological MimicryAnimalsBiological EvolutionLearningModels, BiologicalPredatory Behavioranti-predator defenceBatesian mimicrycalyptrate flyChinese mantidevasive mimicryinsect learning

Identifiers

PMID38166416
PMCPMC10762431
OpenAlexW4390543592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.