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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17148243)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive.
    Barnett CA; Bateson M; Rowe C
    Biol Lett; 2014 Nov; 10(11):20140533. PubMed ID: 25392317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry?
    Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Proc Biol Sci; 2005 Feb; 272(1560):339-45. PubMed ID: 15705561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Taste-rejection behaviour by predators can promote variability in prey defences.
    Halpin CG; Rowe C
    Biol Lett; 2010 Oct; 6(5):617-9. PubMed ID: 20335201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Avian predators taste reject mimetic prey in relation to their signal reliability.
    He R; Pagani-Núñez E; Goodale E; Barnett CRA
    Sci Rep; 2022 Feb; 12(1):2334. PubMed ID: 35149707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Birds learn to use distastefulness as a signal of toxicity.
    Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Proc Biol Sci; 2010 Jun; 277(1688):1729-34. PubMed ID: 20129989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences.
    Ihalainen E; Lindström L; Mappes J
    J Evol Biol; 2007 Mar; 20(2):780-91. PubMed ID: 17305843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Why has transparency evolved in aposematic butterflies? Insights from the largest radiation of aposematic butterflies, the Ithomiini.
    McClure M; Clerc C; Desbois C; Meichanetzoglou A; Cau M; Bastin-Héline L; Bacigalupo J; Houssin C; Pinna C; Nay B; Llaurens V; Berthier S; Andraud C; Gomez D; Elias M
    Proc Biol Sci; 2019 Apr; 286(1901):20182769. PubMed ID: 30991931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution.
    Gamberale-Stille G; Guilford T
    Proc Biol Sci; 2004 Dec; 271(1557):2621-5. PubMed ID: 15615689
    [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. The Impact of Detoxification Costs and Predation Risk on Foraging: Implications for Mimicry Dynamics.
    Halpin CG; Skelhorn J; Rowe C; Ruxton GD; Higginson AD
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0169043. PubMed ID: 28045959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A natural toxic defense system: cardenolides in butterflies versus birds.
    Brower LP; Fink LS
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1985; 443():171-88. PubMed ID: 3860070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How do predators cope with chemically defended foods?
    Glendinning JI
    Biol Bull; 2007 Dec; 213(3):252-66. PubMed ID: 18083965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive.
    Lindström L; Rowe C; Guilford T
    Proc Biol Sci; 2001 Jan; 268(1463):159-62. PubMed ID: 11209885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.