
@article {160479,
	title = {Global selection on insect antipredator coloration.},
	journal = {Science},
	volume = {389},
	year = {2025},
	month = {2025 Sep 25},
	pages = {1336-1341},
	abstract = {<p>Natural selection has repeatedly led to the evolution of two alternative antipredator color strategies-camouflage to avoid detection and aposematism to advertise unprofitability-but we lack understanding of how ecological context favors one strategy over the other. We conducted a globally replicated predation experiment at 21 sites on six continents to test how predator community, prey community, and visual environment influenced the predation risk of 15,018 artificial paper "moth" prey with cryptic or warning coloration. Results indicated that aposematic strategies fare better in environments with low predation intensity, whereas camouflage strategies are advantaged when other camouflaged prey species are rare and when light levels are low. This study demonstrates how multiple mechanisms shape antipredator strategies, helping to explain the evolution and global distribution of camouflaged and aposematic animals.</p>
},
	keywords = {Animals, Biological Evolution, Biological Mimicry, Color, Ecosystem, Insecta, Pigmentation, Predatory Behavior, Selection, Genetic},
	issn = {1095-9203},
	doi = {10.1126/science.adr7368},
	author = {Medina, Iliana and Exnerov{\'a}, Alice and Da{\v n}kov{\'a}, Kl{\'a}ra and Penacchio, Olivier and Sherratt, Tom N and Albrecht, Tom{\'a}{\v s} and Baidya, Sarika and Bosque, Renan Janke and Brown, H{\'e}lo{\"\i}se and Burdfield-Steel, Emily and Cain, Kristal E and Cez{\'a}rio, Rodrigo Roucourt and Chiari, Ylenia and Esquivel, Carolina and Ferreira, Rhainer Guillermo and Franklin, Amanda M and Garvey, Aloise and Guchu, Samuel and Hastings, Brandon T and Hotov{\'a}-Sv{\'a}dov{\'a}, Kate{\v r}ina and Hwang, Yerin and Kang, Changku and Kasaya, John and Kelley, Jennifer and Kim, Yongsu and Kunte, Krushnamegh and Daetto-Liberato, Felipe and Loeffler-Henry, Karl and Lopez, Vinicius Marques and MacKay-Dietrich, Claire and Mappes, Johanna and De M{\'a}rsico, Mar{\'\i}a Cecilia and Nawge, Viraj and Njoroge, Peter and Nokelainen, Ossi and Pal, Arka and Paul, Archan and Posont, Robert and Ra{\v s}ka, Jan and Reboreda, Juan Carlos and Rojas Ripari, Juan Manuel and Rowland, Hannah M and Sabio, Maria de Las Nieves and Salazar, Camilo and Salgado-Roa, Fabian C and Stephens-C{\'a}rdenas, Steve A and Szab{\'o}, Anita and Mongui Torres, Juan Pablo and Troscianko, Jolyon and Truhl{\'a}{\v r}ov{\'a}, Marie and Umbers, Kate D L and Venton, Molly and Vitasovich, Makenzie and Wang, Lu-Yi and Weil, Sarah-Sophie and Allen, William L}
}
@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}
}
