Cited by 109Animal Behavior and ReproductionInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlPhysiological and biochemical adaptations

Drop or fly? Negative genetic correlation between death-feigning intensity and flying ability as alternative anti-predator strategies

Open access
Ohno, Tatsunori, Miyatake, Takahisa·2007·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

A prey animal may have the alternative of flying away or feigning death when it encounters predators. These alternatives have a genetic base as anti-predator strategies in the adzuki bean beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis . A negative genetic correlation between death-feigning intensity and flying ability was found in C. chinensis , i.e. lower flying ability is genetically connected to escaping by dropping from a perch and then feigning death, whereas higher flying ability does not correspond to death-feigning behaviour. Two bidirectional artificial selections for death-feigning duration and flying ability were conducted independently in C. chinensis . The strains selected for shorter (longer) duration of death-feigning had higher (lower) flying ability, while the strains selected for lower (higher) flying ability showed longer (shorter) duration of death-feigning. When the two traits were compared in 21 populations of C. chinensis derived from different geographical regions, a significant negative correlation was found between death-feigning intensity and flying ability. Based on these results, the choice between alternative escaping behaviours in animals is discussed from two points of view: phenotypic plasticity, an individual with two tactics; and pleiotropic genetic correlation, different individuals with opposite strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2006.3750

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ohno, T., & Miyatake, T.
Affiliations
Okayama University (JP)
Corresponding author
Miyatake, Takahisa
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2006-11-21
Volume
274
Issue
1609
Pages
555-560
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2121219758
Cited by
109
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16370013)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Physiological and biochemical adaptations
Keywords
Callosobruchus chinensis, tonic immobility, flight ability, anti-predator strategies, selective breeding, phenotypic plasticity, pleiotropy
MeSH terms
Animals, Coleoptera, Flight, Animal, Predatory Behavior, Immobility Response, Tonic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review