
@article {130542,
	title = {The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences.},
	journal = {J Evol Biol},
	year = {2023},
	month = {2023 Jun 26},
	abstract = {<p>Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such "defence portfolios" that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies.</p>
},
	issn = {1420-9101},
	doi = {10.1111/jeb.14192},
	author = {Kikuchi, David W and Allen, William L and Arbuckle, Kevin and Aubier, Thomas G and Briolat, Emmanuelle S and Burdfield-Steel, Emily R and Cheney, Karen L and Da{\v n}kov{\'a}, Kl{\'a}ra and Elias, Marianne and H{\"a}m{\"a}l{\"a}inen, Liisa and Herberstein, Marie E and Hossie, Thomas J and Joron, Mathieu and Kunte, Krushnamegh and Leavell, Brian C and Lindstedt, Carita and Lorioux-Chevalier, Ugo and McClure, Melanie and McLellan, Callum F and Medina, Iliana and Nawge, Viraj and P{\'a}ez, Erika and Pal, Arka and Pek{\'a}r, Stano and Penacchio, Olivier and Ra{\v s}ka, Jan and Reader, Tom and Rojas, Bibiana and R{\"o}nk{\"a}, Katja H and R{\"o}{\ss}ler, Daniela C and Rowe, Candy and Rowland, Hannah M and Roy, Arlety and Schaal, Kaitlin A and Sherratt, Thomas N and Skelhorn, John and Smart, Hannah R and Stankowich, Ted and Stefan, Amanda M and Summers, Kyle and Taylor, Christopher H and Thorogood, Rose and Umbers, Kate and Winters, Anne E and Yeager, Justin and Exnerov{\'a}, Alice}
}
