Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism

By Hanna Kokko, J. Mappes, L. Lindström. 2003

85 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a8ed1fcdff6b95752bd0fc651bd8bb79c7faccb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content (2012, result): “These studies support the basic assumptions of several recent state-dependent mathematical models of Müllerian mimicry that predators can learn to use visual signals to trade-off the ingestion of nutrients and toxins (Kokko et al. 2003; Sherratt 2003; Sherratt, Speed, et al. 2004).”
State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey (2007, background): “For example, when palatable prey are relatively scarce, the benefits of obtaining energy from defended prey increases, and predators could raise their attack rates on aposematic prey despite the costs involved with ingesting toxins (Kokko et al. 2003; Lindström et al. 2004).”
The Developmental, Physiological, Neural, and Genetical Causes and Consequences of Frequency-Dependent Selection in the Wild (2006, background): “In the case of a model, a mimic, and generalist predator (Kokko et al. 2003), it is difficult to equate fitness of predator and alternative prey.”
Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult (2010, methodology): “…equals W (note that we are using a recursive modelling technique where the expected future fitness gain of a searching male is the same whether it is his first search bout or whether he already gained fitness in the past, see e.g. Houston & McNamara 1999; Kokko et al. 2003; Schmeller et al. 2005).”
Learning about aposematic prey (2016, background): “As we have already discussed, this has helped to develop the idea that predators regulate their intake of toxic prey according to their physiological state, and identify novel cognitive and evolutionary processes (Kokko et al. 2003; Sherratt 2003; Sherratt et al. 2004; Barnett et al. 2007; Skelhor”