Summary: Author's personal copy
evolution of deception in plants. In this scenario, the
paradox alluded to by Schiestl et al. (that experimental
addition of nectar leads to higher pollination success of
unrewarding plants) is a logical consequence of combining
two successful advertising strategies: high conspicuous-
ness and high nutritional rewards. We therefore empha-
sise that the costs and benefits of alternative phenotypes of
floral appearance can arise in distinct contexts, including
signalling. As such, EPB and communication theory should
be useful frameworks for understanding the evolution of
deception.
References
1 Schaefer, H.M. and Ruxton, G.D. (2009) Deception in plants: mimicry or
perceptual exploitation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 676­685
2 Schiestl, F.P. et al. (2010) Floral evolution as a figment of pollinators'
imaginations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 382­383
3 Endler, J.A. and Basolo, A.L. (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and
sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 415­420
4 Bradbury, J.W. and Vehrencamp, S.L. (1998) Principles of Animal

Source: Andrews, Anne M. - Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University

Collections: Biology and Medicine