These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11459937)

  • 1. Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey.
    Lindström L; Alatalo RV; Lyytinen A; Mappes J
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2001 Jul; 98(16):9181-4. PubMed ID: 11459937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey.
    Lindström L; Alatalo RV; Lyytinen A; Mappes J
    Proc Biol Sci; 2001 Feb; 268(1465):357-61. PubMed ID: 11270431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Conditions for the spread of conspicuous warning signals: a numerical model with novel insights.
    Puurtinen M; Kaitala V
    Evolution; 2006 Nov; 60(11):2246-56. PubMed ID: 17236418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Social learning within and across predator species reduces attacks on novel aposematic prey.
    Hämäläinen L; Mappes J; Rowland HM; Teichmann M; Thorogood R
    J Anim Ecol; 2020 May; 89(5):1153-1164. PubMed ID: 32077104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation.
    Skelhorn J; Ruxton GD
    Biol Lett; 2006 Dec; 2(4):488-90. PubMed ID: 17148269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey.
    Gamberale G; Tullberg BS
    Proc Biol Sci; 1996 Oct; 263(1375):1329-34. PubMed ID: 8914330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Social transmission of avoidance among predators facilitates the spread of novel prey.
    Thorogood R; Kokko H; Mappes J
    Nat Ecol Evol; 2018 Feb; 2(2):254-261. PubMed ID: 29255302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals.
    Endler JA; Mappes J
    Am Nat; 2004 Apr; 163(4):532-47. PubMed ID: 15122501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Body size matters for aposematic prey during predator aversion learning.
    Smith KE; Halpin CG; Rowe C
    Behav Processes; 2014 Nov; 109 Pt B():173-9. PubMed ID: 25256160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The signal detection problem of aposematic prey revisited: integrating prior social and personal experience.
    Hämäläinen L; Thorogood R
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2020 Jul; 375(1802):20190473. PubMed ID: 32420858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Aposematism: balancing salience and camouflage.
    Barnett JB; Scott-Samuel NE; Cuthill IC
    Biol Lett; 2016 Aug; 12(8):. PubMed ID: 27484645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey.
    Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Biol Lett; 2005 Dec; 1(4):500-3. PubMed ID: 17148243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of social learning on avoidance of aposematic prey in juvenile great tits (Parus major).
    Landová E; Hotová Svádová K; Fuchs R; Štys P; Exnerová A
    Anim Cogn; 2017 Sep; 20(5):855-866. PubMed ID: 28639012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Aposematic signals and the relationship between conspicuousness and distinctiveness.
    Merilaita S; Ruxton GD
    J Theor Biol; 2007 Mar; 245(2):268-77. PubMed ID: 17157321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Inferring predator behavior from attack rates on prey-replicas that differ in conspicuousness.
    Stuart YE; Dappen N; Losin N
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e48497. PubMed ID: 23119039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Birds learn to avoid aposematic prey by using the appearance of host plants.
    McLellan CF; Scott-Samuel NE; Cuthill IC
    Curr Biol; 2021 Dec; 31(23):5364-5369.e4. PubMed ID: 34624210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations.
    Riipi M; Alatalo RV; Lindström L; Mappes J
    Nature; 2001 Oct; 413(6855):512-4. PubMed ID: 11586357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey.
    Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Curr Biol; 2007 Sep; 17(17):1479-83. PubMed ID: 17716896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence.
    Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Biol Lett; 2006 Sep; 2(3):348-50. PubMed ID: 17148400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perspective: the evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical.
    Marples NM; Kelly DJ; Thomas RJ
    Evolution; 2005 May; 59(5):933-40. PubMed ID: 16136793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.