Data from: Efficacy of multiple defences of mimics from the golden mimicry complex against two predators
Data files
Sep 08, 2023 version files 30.22 KB
-
datastore.xlsx
-
README.md
Abstract
Many prey species employ multiple defences during interactions with predators. Multiple defences can provide a selective advantage against a single predator at different stages of the interaction or attack, as well as against multiple predator types. However, the efficacy of multiple defences both during different sequences of an attack and against multiple predator types, remains poorly understood. We measured and classified defensive traits used by five mimics (Müllerian and Batesian) of the myrmecomorphic golden mimicry complex and one non-mimetic species. We then performed predatory trials using two different predators that differed markedly in their body size, trophic specialisation, and how they handle prey – one being an ant specialist (spider) and the other a generalist which avoided ants (skink). We identified 12 defensive traits and classified them into four groups (primary, chemical, mechanical, behavioural), which were strongly correlated. Skinks were much less likely to attack and capture mimics than the ant-eating spider predators. Our results show that multiple defences (five or six) were used against each predator. The defensive behaviours and features that were most effective against skinks included appendage waving and large body size, whereas the golden ‘shine’ warning signal, large body size, cuticle thickness, and defensive gland size were most effective against spiders. Most defences appeared to be predator-specific. We conclude that potential prey in the golden mimicry complex have been selected for multiple defences because of their vulnerability to different predator types and consequently, the efficacy of some of these defences likely represents a trade-off.
README: Efficacy of multiple defences of mimics from the golden mimicry complex against two predators
(https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fbg79cp1t)
Give a brief summary of dataset contents, contextualized in experimental procedures and results.
Description of the data and file structure
The file contains three spreadsheets: Servea includes data from experiment using Servea spiders; skink includes data from experiment using skinks, and traits includes defensive traits. The Servea sheet includes data on the size of spiders [mm], size of prey [mm], prey type. In each trial we recorded latency to attack (i.e., time [s] from orienting to prey to when they first pounced on prey), latency to capture (i.e., time [s] from the first attack to capture), number of attacks, and attack and capture frequencies. The skink sheet includes prey type, latency to spot (time [s] from prey release to when skink turned to see the prey), latency to approach (time [s] from spotting to when the skink started to move towards prey), latency to attack (time [s] from approaching to actual capture), frequency of tongue-flicking from predator approach to capture, attack and capture frequencies, and whether the captured prey was subsequently consumed or discarded. The traits sheet includes gland size [mm2], cuticle thickness [mm], jaw size [mm], total spine length [mm], number of spines, total body length [mm], biting relative frequency, spraying relative frequency, proportion of golden area, escape speed [cm/s], leg waving frequency [per s] and body shape index.
NA values stand for not available.
All details can be found in the article.
Sharing/Access information
Alternatively, data can be obtained from the first author.
Code/Software
All analyses were conducted using R as detailed in the article.
Methods
The details are described in the Methods of the article.