戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1  hypothesis that coloration in this group is aposematic.
2 otypic consequences of predator selection in aposematic and cryptic species exists.
3  toxic prey is not restricted to classically aposematic and highly toxic species.
4 ining plants often sequester the toxins, are aposematic, and possess several physiological adaptation
5           Many of the color pigments used by aposematic animals are components of anti-infection immu
6                                              Aposematic animals couple unprofitability to predators,
7            The conspicuous warning signal of aposematic animals is learned by their predators, and th
8 n and global distribution of camouflaged and aposematic animals.
9 e frogs generally have been considered to be aposematic, but relatively little research has been carr
10  important cue to foraging predators.(6) The aposematic cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae) larva is a sp
11 unprofitability to predators via conspicuous aposematic coloration [1].
12 evidence for directional sexual selection on aposematic coloration and document sexual dimorphism in
13                                              Aposematic coloration is commonly considered to signal u
14     The conditions favoring the evolution of aposematic coloration remain largely unidentified.
15 mimicry [4, 5] (where species share the same aposematic coloration), and consequently this cognitive
16                                              Aposematic coloration, or warning coloration, is a visua
17  in the initial evolution and persistence of aposematic coloration.
18                                   Therefore, aposematic colouration is predicted to evolve in species
19 mplete reference genome of Eumaeus atala, an aposematic cycad-eating hairstreak butterfly that suffer
20 on, stomach contents and leaf litter ants in aposematic diablito frogs (Oophaga sylvatica) at five si
21 We argue in this paper that the evolution of aposematic displays is therefore often best understood w
22 mstances there is an infinite array of these aposematic ESSs, where the precise appearance is unimpor
23 election should not be ignored in studies of aposematic evolution.
24 a has been experimentally demonstrated to be aposematic, forewarning of the animal's cyanide-based to
25 read of aposematism required fixation of the aposematic form in one or more isolated sub-habitats pri
26 ouring sink habitats is then repeated as the aposematic form spreads via a moving cline.
27 We observed that changes in frequency of new aposematic forms within source habitats are likely to be
28 oups of primitively cryptic and more derived aposematic frogs.
29 voided; simultaneously, the addition of more aposematic individuals enhances the overall warning effe
30 vironmental context in which they appear,(5) aposematic insects' host plants might also provide an im
31 omic affiliation, were more likely to evolve aposematic larvae than were lineages feeding only on tre
32 cal specialization facilitated the origin of aposematic larvae.
33  the signal environment and the evolution of aposematic larvae.
34 ere are at least four independent origins of aposematic larval coloration within Papilio.
35                           Surprisingly, some aposematic mimetic species have partially transparent wi
36 t the evolution of mimicry in the absence of aposematic models or third party participants remains po
37 tness advantage by evolving a resemblance to aposematic models, involves adaptive evolution of multip
38 encies of hindwing warning coloration of the aposematic moth, Arctia plantaginis, differ.
39  (ii) avoidance-learning inducers, and (iii) aposematic odorant cues.
40 ew mutation will produce an entire family of aposematic offspring, thereby providing an immediate fit
41 ariability in camouflaged organisms, whereas aposematic organisms are expected to evolve a more unifo
42                                              Aposematic organisms couple conspicuous warning signals
43 ities they show contrasting yellow and black aposematic patterning that deters predators.
44            An apparent and common feature of aposematic patterns is that they contain a high level of
45 ce contrast in future work investigating why aposematic patterns take the particular forms that they
46 ders, the rate of transition from cryptic to aposematic phenotype is 17 to 19 times higher than vice
47                                         Most aposematic poison frogs are ant specialists, from which
48 both blue tits and great tits consumed fewer aposematic prey after observing a negative foraging expe
49 to manipulate social information about novel aposematic prey and then compared birds' foraging choice
50 ctions among predators can reduce attacks on aposematic prey and therefore influence selection for pr
51                                  Conspicuous aposematic prey are assumed to be an easy target for nai
52                             Novel signals of aposematic prey are expected to be selected against due
53 tion tends to reduce the probability that an aposematic prey can increase from rarity and spread acro
54  The predator has the choice of including an aposematic prey in its diet or to forage on alternative
55 el world' that contained novel palatable and aposematic prey items.
56 ndicate that social transmission about novel aposematic prey occurs in multiple predator species and
57                  These findings suggest that aposematic prey patterns with a high luminance contrast
58                                       First, aposematic prey tend to decline in frequency as they mig
59 ation use by predators might further benefit aposematic prey, but this remains untested.
60 egulatory modulation of optix in shaping the aposematic red patterns of Heliconius butterflies,(2)(,)
61 rved another function and was co-opted as an aposematic signal later in the diversification of the ge
62 In this article, the authors describe how an aposematic signal, the rattling sound of rattlesnakes (C
63 curring defended prey species share a common aposematic signal.
64 est that the flight convergence is driven by aposematic signaling rather than shared habitat between
65                        Similarly, toxins and aposematic signaling that deter egg predators are often
66 siveness does not always necessarily trigger aposematic signalling, and highly toxic prey can still b
67 intenance of bold visual defences, including aposematic signalling.
68                    Here, we demonstrate that aposematic signals are shaped by sexual selection as wel
69                                     Although aposematic signals have long been upheld as exemplars of
70 tterns to test if high luminance contrast in aposematic signals is important for deterring naive pred
71                                              Aposematic signals that warn predators of the noxious qu
72 ling prey, but also inhibit the evolution of aposematic signals themselves.
73 explored the forces of selection on variable aposematic signals using 2 phenotypically distinct (whit
74 ly enable camouflage but can also be part of aposematic signals.
75 ator avoidance tactics demonstrate different aposematic solutions for two potentially costly signal c
76 does not however properly consider that many aposematic species (such as members of the hymenoptera,
77               Polymorphic warning signals in aposematic species are enigmatic because predator learni
78 persist after they arise, and why do so many aposematic species exhibit intrapopulation signal variab
79                                We found that aposematic species have greater aerobic capacity, also r
80                               In particular, aposematic species tend to use more specialized tadpole-
81                              In Lepidoptera, aposematic species typically harbour conspicuous opaque
82 micking the appearance of a heavily defended aposematic species, members of a second species gain pro
83 totelmata, and ferry fewer tadpoles than non-aposematic species.
84  being more variable in wing patterning than aposematic species.
85                       Results indicated that aposematic strategies fare better in environments with l
86         The phylogenetic distribution of the aposematic syndrome suggests two scenarios for its evolu
87 uency-dependent selection (+FDS) albeit many aposematic systems exhibit signal polymorphism.
88 molecular phylogenetic analyses using mostly aposematic taxa supported this conclusion and proposed a
89 -based toxins, these results are contrary to aposematic theory and empirical evidence that a warning
90  models showed significantly faster rates of aposematic trait evolution, creating adaptive peaks for
91                          To characterize the aposematic trait network more fully, we analyzed phyloge
92       Explaining the evolution and spread of aposematic traits in previously cryptic species has been
93 he prevailing force driving the evolution of aposematic traits.
94 anism for the persistence of intrapopulation aposematic variation, a likely precursor to polytypism a
95 plays can resemble, or indeed co-occur with, aposematic 'warning' signals, theory suggests deimatic d
96 butterflies, well known for mimicry of their aposematic wing color patterns.