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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17716896)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Predators' decisions to eat defended prey depend on the size of undefended prey.
    Halpin CG; Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Anim Behav; 2013 Jun; 85(6):1315-1321. PubMed ID: 23814280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Increased predation of nutrient-enriched aposematic prey.
    Halpin CG; Skelhorn J; Rowe C
    Proc Biol Sci; 2014 Apr; 281(1781):20133255. PubMed ID: 24598424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The benefits of being toxic to deter predators depends on prey body size.
    Smith KE; Halpin CG; Rowe C
    Behav Ecol; 2016; 27(6):1650-1655. PubMed ID: 28028378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Ambient temperature influences birds' decisions to eat toxic prey.
    Chatelain M; Halpin CG; Rowe C
    Anim Behav; 2013 Oct; 86(4):733-740. PubMed ID: 24109148
    [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. 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]  

  • 15. The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defense.
    Sherratt TN; Beatty CD
    Am Nat; 2003 Oct; 162(4):377-89. PubMed ID: 14582002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The effects of predator learning, forgetting, and recognition errors on the evolution of warning coloration.
    Servedio MR
    Evolution; 2000 Jun; 54(3):751-63. PubMed ID: 10937250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Numbers, neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?
    Kaczmarek JM; Kaczmarski M; Mazurkiewicz J; Kloskowski J
    Ecol Evol; 2020 Dec; 10(24):13705-13716. PubMed ID: 33391674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.