Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 9, pp 1321–1327 | Cite as

The roles of sensory traps in the origin, maintenance, and breakdown of mutualism

  • David P. Edwards
  • Douglas W. Yu
Review

Abstract

Sensory traps are signal mimics that elicit out-of-context behaviors by exploiting the adaptive, neural responses of signal receivers. Sensory traps have long been invoked in studies of mate and prey attraction, but the possible roles of sensory traps in mutualisms (cooperation between species) have yet to be thoroughly examined. Our review identifies four candidate roles for sensory traps in the evolution of mutualistic interactions: reassembly, error reduction, enforcement, and cost reduction. A key consequence of sensory traps is that they limit the applicability of partner choice and biological market models of mutualism. We conclude by suggesting that an important research topic in the evolution of cooperation should be to identify any mechanisms that increase the truthfulness of communication between cooperating species.

Keywords

Cooperation Cheating Parasitism Sexual selection Aggressive mimicry 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Doyle McKey, Mark Hassall, and William Sutherland for the comments, and the National Environmental Research Council (NERC) for a studentship awarded to D.E.

References

  1. Agren J, Schemske DW (1991) Pollination by deceit in a neotropical monoecious herb, Begonia involucrata. Biotropica 23:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akino T, Knapp JJ, Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1999) Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 266:1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Als TD, Nash DR, Boomsma JJ (2001) Adoption of parasitic Maculinea alcon caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) by three Myrmica ant species. Anim Behav 62:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Als TD, Vila R, Kandul NP, Nash DR, Yen SH, Hsu YF, Mignault AA, Boomsma JJ, Pierce NE (2004) The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 432:386–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anstett MC (1999) An experimental study of the interaction between the dwarf palm (Chamaerops humilis) and its floral visitor Derelomus chamaeropsis throughout the life cycle of the weevil. Acta Oecol 20:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armbruster WS, Antonsen L, Pelabon C (2005) Phenotypic selection on Dalechampia blossoms: honest signaling affects pollination success. Ecology 86:3323–3333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergstrom CT, Bronstein JL, Bshary R, Connor RC, Daly M, Frank SA, Gintis H, Keller L, Leimar O, Noe R, Queller DC (2003) Group report: interspecific mutualism. Puzzles and predictions. In: Hammerstein P (ed) Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 241–256Google Scholar
  8. Borgkarlson AK, Bergstrom G, Groth I (1985) Chemical basis for the relationship between Ophrys orchids and their pollinators, 1. Volatile compounds of Ophrys lutea and O. fusca as insect mimetic attractants/excitants. Chem Scr 25:283–294Google Scholar
  9. Borgkarlson AK, Bergstrom G, Kullenberg B (1987) Chemical basis for the relationship between Ophrys orchids and their pollinators, 2. Volatile compounds of O. insectifera and O. speculum as insect mimetic attractants/excitants. Chem Scr 27:303–311Google Scholar
  10. Bowles S, Hammerstein P (2003) Does market theory apply to biology? In: Hammerstein P (ed) Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 153–165Google Scholar
  11. Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 9:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bronstein JL (2001) The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol Lett 4:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bronstein JL, Wilson WG, Morris WE (2003) Ecological dynamics of mutualist/antagonist communities. Am Nat 162:S24–S39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brouat C, McKey D, Bessiere JM, Pascal L, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Leaf volatile compounds and the distribution of ant patrolling in an ant–plant protection mutualism: Preliminary results on Leonardoxa (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae) and Petalomyrmex (Formicidae: Formicinae). Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 21:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown JH (1983) Interaction and coevolution—Thompson, JN. Science 220:1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruce MJ, Herberstein ME, Elgar MA (2001) Signalling conflict between prey and predator attraction. J Evol Biol 14:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bull JJ, Rice WR (1991) Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation. J Theor Biol 149:63–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Caley MJ, Schluter D (2003) Predators favour mimicry in a tropical reef fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christy JH (1995) Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am Nat 146:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christy JH, Backwell PRY, Schober U (2003a) Interspecific attractiveness of structures built by courting male fiddler crabs: experimental evidence of a sensory trap. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:84–91Google Scholar
  21. Christy JH, Baum JK, Backwell PRY (2003b) Attractiveness of sand hoods built by courting male fiddler crabs, Uca musica: test of a sensory trap hypothesis. Anim Behav 66:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Connor RC (1986) Pseudo-reciprocity-investing in mutualism. Anim Behav 34:1562–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig CL, Bernard GD (1990) Insect attraction to ultraviolet-reflecting spider webs and web decorations. Ecology 71:616–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cresswell W (1994) Song as a pursuit-deterrent signal, and its occurrence relative to other anti-predation behaviors of skylark (Alauda arvensis) on attack by merlins (Falco columbarius). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:217–223Google Scholar
  25. Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ (1994) Assessing benefits to both participants in a lycaenid–ant association. Ecology 75:1031–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davidson DW (1988) Ecological-studies of Neotropical ant gardens. Ecology 69:1138–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davidson DW, Seidel JL, Epstein WW (1990) Neotropical ant gardens, 2. Bioassays of seed compounds. J Chem Ecol 16:2993–3013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DeVries PJ (1990) Enhancement of symbioses between butterfly caterpillars and ants by vibrational communication. Science 248:1104–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeVries PJ, Cocroft RB, Thomas J (1993) Comparison of acoustical signals in Maculinea butterfly caterpillars and their obligate host Myrmica ants. Biol J Linn Soc 49:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doebeli M, Knowlton N (1998) The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8676–8680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Duffield GE, Gibson RC, Gilhooly PM, Hesse AJ, Inkley CR, Gilbert FS, Barnard CJ (1993) Choice of flowers by foraging honey-bees (Apis mellifera)—possible morphological cues. Ecol Entomol 18:191–197Google Scholar
  32. Edwards DP, Hassall M, Sutherland WJ, Yu DW (2006) Selection for protection in an ant–plant mutualism: host sanctions, host modularity, and the principal-agent game. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:595–602Google Scholar
  33. Edwards DP, Arauco R, Hassall M, Sutherland WJ, Chamberlain K, Wadhams LJ, Yu DW (2007) Protection in an ant–plant mutualism: an adaptation or a sensory trap? Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Endler JA, Houde AE (1995) Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49:456–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fitzgibbon CD, Fanshawe JH (1988) Stotting in Thomson gazelles—an honest signal of condition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Floate KD, Whitham TG (1994) Aphid–ant interaction reduces chrysomelid herbivory in a cottonwood hybrid zone. Oecologia 97:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Frank SA (1994) Genetics of mutualism: the evolution of altruism between species. J Theor Biol 170:393–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Frank SA (1996) Host–symbiont conflict over the mixing of symbiotic lineages. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Frank SA (2003) Repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution 57:693–705PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ghazoul J (2001) Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant–plant conflicts? Ecol Lett 4:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibernau M, Hossaert-McKey M, Frey J, Kjellberg F (1998) Are olfactory signals sufficient to attract fig pollinators? Ecoscience 5:306–311Google Scholar
  43. Golding YC, Edmunds M (2000) Behavioural mimicry of honeybees (Apis mellifera) by droneflies (Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalis spp.). Proc R Soc Lond B 267:903–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gonzalez A, Rowe CL, Weeks PJ, Whittle D, Gilbert FS, Barnard CJ (1995) Flower choice by honey-bees (Apis mellifera L)—sex phase of flowers and preferences among nectar and pollen foragers. Oecologia 101:258–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Grafen A, Godfray HCJ (1991) Vicarious selection explains some paradoxes in dioecious fig pollinator systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 245:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grether GF (2000) Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 54:1712–1724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Grison-Pigé L, Bessiere JM, Turlings TCJ, Kjellberg F, Roy J, Hossaert-McKey MM (2001) Limited intersex mimicry of floral odour in Ficus carica. Funct Ecol 15:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hamilton WD, Brown SP (2001) Autumn tree colours as a handicap signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1489–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Haynes KF, Yeargan KV (1999) Exploitation of intraspecific communication systems: illicit signalers and receivers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 92:960–970Google Scholar
  51. Henning SF (1983) Chemical communication between lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Entomol Soc South Afr 46:341–366Google Scholar
  52. Henning SF (1987) Chemical communication between lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Metamorphosis 3:66–81Google Scholar
  53. Herre EA, Knowlton N, Mueller UG, Rehner SA (1999) The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hoch WA, Singsaas EL, McCown BH (2003) Resorption protection. Anthocyanins facilitate nutrient recovery in autumn by shielding leaves from potentially damaging light levels. Plant Physiol 133:1296–1305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hochberg ME, Gomulkiewicz R, Holt RD, Thompson JN (2000) Weak sinks could cradle mutualistic symbioses—strong sources should harbour parasitic symbioses. J Evol Biol 13:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hoeksema JD, Kummel M (2003) Ecological persistence of the plant–mycorrhizal mutualism: a hypothesis from species coexistence theory. Am Nat 162:S40–S50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Houde AE (1987) Mate choice based upon naturally-occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Evolution 41:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hughes L, Westoby M (1992) Capitula on stick insect eggs and elaiosomes on seeds—convergent adaptations for burial by ants. Funct Ecol 6:642–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ito F, Higashi S (1991) An indirect mutualism between oaks and wood ants via aphids. J Anim Ecol 60:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jackson RR, Wilcox RS (1990) Aggressive mimicry, prey-specific predatory behavior and predator-recognition in the predator–prey interactions of Portia fimbriata and Euryattus sp, jumping spiders from Queensland. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Johnson SD (1994) Evidence for Batesian mimicry in a butterfly-pollinated orchid. Biol J Linn Soc 53:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Johnson SD (2000) Batesian mimicry in the non-rewarding orchid Disa pulchra, and its consequences for pollinator behaviour. Biol J Linn Soc 71:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kiers ET, Rousseau RA, West SA, Denison RF (2003) Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism. Nature 425:78–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kleinfeldt SE (1978) Ant–gardens: the interaction of Codonanthe crassifolia (Gesneriaceae) and Crematogaster longispina (Formicidae). Ecology 59:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Laiolo P, Tella JL, Carrete M, Serrano D, Lopez G (2004) Distress calls may honestly signal bird quality to predators. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S513–S515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Leal M (1999) Honest signalling during prey–predator interactions in the lizard Anolis cristatellus. Anim Behav 58:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lloyd JE (1986) Firefly communication and deception: “Oh, what a tangled web.” In: Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (eds) Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit. SUNY, Albany, NY, pp 113–128Google Scholar
  68. Messina FJ (1981) Plant protection as a consequence of an ant–membracid mutualism—interactions on goldenrod (Solidago sp). Ecology 62:1433–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Möller AP (1995) Bumblebee preference for symmetrical flowers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:2288–2292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Moore JC, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM, Compton SG (2003) Fig choice by the pollinator of a gynodioecious fig: selection to rush, or intersexual mimicry? Oikos 101:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morris WF, Bronstein JL, Wilson WG (2003) Three-way coexistence in obligate mutualist–exploiter interactions: The potential role of competition. Am Nat 161:860–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nishida R, Baker TC, Roelofs WL (1982) Hairpencil pheromone components of male Oriental fruit moths, Grapholitha molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Chem Ecol 8:947–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nishida R, Fukami H, Baker TC, Roelofs WL, Acree TE (1985) Oriental fruit moth pheromone: attraction of females by an herbal essence. In: Acree TE, Soderlund DM (eds) Semiochemistry, flavours and pheromones. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  74. Noë R, Hammerstein P (1994) Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:1–11Google Scholar
  75. Nowak MA, Bonhoeffer S, May RM (1994) Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:4877–4881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Payne RB (1982) Species limits in the indigobirds (Ploceidae, Vidua) of west Africa: mouth mimicry, song mimicry, and description of new species. Misc Publ Univ Mich Mus Zool 162:1–96Google Scholar
  77. Payne RB, Payne LL (1994) Song mimicry and species associations of west African indigobirds Vidua with quail-finch Ortygospiza atricollis, goldbreast Amandava subflava and brown twinspot Clytospiza monteiri. Ibis 136:291–304Google Scholar
  78. Pellmyr O, Huth CJ (1994) Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Nature 372:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pfennig DW, Harcombe WR, Pfennig KS (2001) Frequency-dependent batesian mimicry—predators avoid look-alikes of venomous snakes only when the real thing is around. Nature 410:323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pierce NE, Mead PS (1981) Parasitoids as selective agents in the symbiosis between lycaenid butterfly larvae and ants. Science 211:1185–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Buckley RC, Taylor MFJ, Benbow KF (1987) The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras, and its attendant ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pierce NE, Braby MF, Heath A, Lohman DJ, Mathew J, Rand DB, Travassos MA (2002) The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu Rev Entomol 47:733–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Proctor HC (1991) Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator—males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Proctor HC (1992) Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating-behavior—a cladistic test using water mites (Acari, Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Raine NE, Willmer P, Stone GN (2002) Spatial structuring and floral avoidance behavior prevent ant–pollinator conflict in a Mexican ant-acacia. Ecology 83:3086–3096Google Scholar
  86. Reznick D, Butler MJ, Rodd H (2001) Life-history evolution in guppies, VII. The comparative ecology of high-and low-predation environments. Am Nat 157:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT (2002) A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ryan MJ (1990) Sexual selection, sensory system and sensory exploitation. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 7:157–195Google Scholar
  89. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Sexual selection and signal evolution—the ghost of biases past. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 340:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sachs JL, Mueller UG, Wilcox TP, Bull JJ (2004) The evolution of cooperation. Q Rev Biol 79:135–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schaefer HM, Schaefer V, Levey DJ (2004) How plant–animal interactions signal new insights in communication. Trends Ecol Evol 19:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schiestl FP (2004) Floral evolution and pollinator mate choice in a sexually deceptive orchid. J Evol Biol 17:67–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schiestl FP, Ayasse M, Paulus HF, Lofstedt C, Hansson BS, Ibarra F, Francke W (1999) Orchid pollination by sexual swindle. Nature 399:421–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schwartz MW, Hoeksema JD (1998) Specialization and resource trade: Biological markets as a model of mutualisms. Ecology 79:1029–1038Google Scholar
  95. Seidel JL, Epstein WW, Davidson DW (1990) Neotropical ant gardens, I. Chemical constituents. J Chem Ecol 16:1791–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shapiro JM, Addicott JF (2003) Regulation of moth–yucca mutualisms: mortality of eggs in oviposition-induced ‘damage zones.’ Ecol Lett 6:440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sherratt TN, Roberts G (2001) The importance of phenotypic defectors in stabilizing reciprocal altruism. Behav Ecol 12:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Simms EL, Taylor DL, Povich J, Shefferson RP, Sachs JL, Urbina M, Tausczik Y (2006) An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume–rhizobium interaction. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stalhandske P (2002) Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:905–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stanton ML, Palmer TM, Young TP (2002) Competition–colonization trade-offs in a guild of African Acacia-ants. Ecol Monogr 72:347–363Google Scholar
  101. Stensmyr MC, Urru I, Collu I, Celander M, Hansson S, Angjoy A (2002) Rotting smell of dead-horse arum florets. Nature 425:625–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stowe MK, Tumlinson JH, Heath RR (1987) Chemical mimicry—Bolas spiders emit components of moth prey species sex-pheromones. Science 236:964–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Thompson JN (1982) Interaction and coevolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  104. Totland O, Matthews I (1998) Determinants of pollinator activity and flower preference in the early spring blooming Crocus vernus. Acta Oecol 19:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Travassos MA, Pierce NE (2000) Acoustics, context and function of vibrational signalling in a lycaenid butterfly–ant mutualism. Anim Behav 60:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tso IM (1996) Stabilimentum of the garden spider Argiope trifasciata: a possible prey attractant. Anim Behav 52:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tso IM (1998) Isolated spider web stabilimentum attracts insects. Behaviour 135:311–319Google Scholar
  108. van Baalen M, Jansen VAA (2001) Dangerous liaisons: the ecology of private interest and common good. Oikos 95:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vega-Redondo F, Hasson O (1993) A game-theoretic model of predator–prey signaling. J Theor Biol 162:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Weiblen GD, Yu DW, West SA (2001) Pollination and parasitism in functionally dioecious figs. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:651–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. West SA, Kiers ET, Pen I, Denison RF (2002a) Sanctions and mutualism stability: when should less beneficial mutualists be tolerated? J Evol Biol 15:830–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. West SA, Kiers ET, Simms EL, Denison RF (2002b) Sanctions and mutualism stability: why do rhizobia fix nitrogen? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:685–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. West-Eberhard MJ (1984) Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Lewis T (ed) Insect communication. Academic, New York, pp 283–324Google Scholar
  114. Wilkinson DM, Sherratt TN (2001) Horizontally acquired mutualisms, an unsolved problem in ecology? Oikos 92:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wilkinson DM, Sherratt TN, Phillip DM, Wratten SD, Dixon AFG, Young AJ (2002) The adaptive significance of autumn leaf colours. Oikos 99:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Willmer PG, Stone GN (1997) How aggressive ant-guards assist seed-set in Acacia flowers. Nature 388:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yachi S (1995) How can honest signalling evolve? The role of handicap principle. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Yamamura N (1993) Vertical transmission and evolution of mutualism from parasitism. Theor Popul Biol 44:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Yeargan KV (1988) Ecology of a Bolas spider, Mastophora hutchinsoni—phenology, hunting tactics, and evidence for aggressive chemical mimicry. Oecologia 74:524–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Yu DW (1994) The structural role of epiphytes in ant gardens. Biotropica 26:222–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Yu DW (2001) Parasites of mutualisms. Biol J Linn Soc 72:529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Yu DW, Davidson DW (1997) Experimental studies of species-specificity in Cecropia–ant relationships. Ecol Monogr 67:273–294Google Scholar
  123. Yu DW, Wilson HB, Pierce NE (2001) An empirical model of species coexistence in a spatially structured environment. Ecology 82:1761–1771Google Scholar
  124. Yu DW, Wilson HB, Frederickson ME, Palomino W, De la Colina R, Edwards DP, Balareso AA (2004) Experimental demonstration of species coexistence enabled by dispersal limitation. J Anim Ecol 73:1102–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation and School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations