The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences

Warning

This publication doesn't include Faculty of Medicine. It includes Faculty of Science. Official publication website can be found on muni.cz.

Authors	KIKUCHI David W ALLEN William L ARBUCKLE Kevin AUBIER Thomas N BRIOLAT Emmanuelle S BURDFIELD-STEEL Emily R CHENEY Karen L DANKOVA Klara ELIAS Marianne HAEMAELAEINEN Liisa HERBERSTEIN Marie E HOSSIE Thomas J JORON Mathieu KUNTE Krushnamegh LEAVELL Brian C LINDSTEDT Carita LORIOUX-CHEVALIER Ugo MCCLURE Melanie MCLELLAN Callum F MEDINA Iliana NAWGE Viraj PAEZ Erika PAL Arka PEKÁR Stanislav PENACCHIO Olivier RASKA Jan READER Tom ROJAS Bibiana ROENKAE Katja H ROESSLER Daniela C ROWE Candy ROWLAND Hannah R ROY Arlety SCHAAL Kaitlin A SHERRATT Thomas N SKELHORN John SMART Hannah R STANKOWICH Ted STEFAN Amanda M SUMMERS Kyle TAYLOR Christopher H THOROGOOD Rose UMBERS Kate WINTERS Anne E YEAGER Justin EXNEROVA Alice
Year of publication	2023
Type	Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source	Journal of Evolutionary Biology
MU Faculty or unit	Faculty of Science
Citation
Web	https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14192
Doi	http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14192
Keywords	antergy; defence portfolio; defence syndrome; intraspecific variation; predation sequence; predator cognition; secondary defences; synergy; trade-offs
Description	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.