The public world of insect vibrational communication

Food webs involving plants, herbivorous insects and their predators account for 75% of terrestrial biodiversity (Price 2002). Within the abundant arthropod community on plants, myriad ecological and social interactions depend on the perception and production of plant-borne mechanical vibrations (Hill 2008). Study of ecological relationships has shown, for example, that termites monitor the vibrations produced by competing colonies in the same tree trunk (Evans et al. 2009), that stink bugs and spiders attend to the incidental vibrations produced by insects feeding or walking on plants (Pfannenstiel et al. 1995, Barth 1998) and that caterpillars can distinguish among the foraging-related vibrations produced by their invertebrate predators (Castellanos & Barbosa 2006). Study of social interactions has revealed that many insects and spiders have evolved the ability to generate intricate patterns of substrate vibration, allowing them to communicate with potential mates or members of their social group (Cokl & Virant-Doberlet 2003; Hill 2008). Surprisingly, research on the role of substrate vibrations in social and ecological interactions has for the most part proceeded independently, in spite of evidence from other communication modalities – acoustic, visual, chemical and electrical – that predators attend to the signals of their prey (Zuk & Kolluru 1998; Stoddard 1999). The study by Virant-Doberlet et al. (2011) in this issue of Molecular Ecology now helps bring these two areas of vibration research together, showing that the foraging behaviour of a spider is influenced by the vibrational mating signals of its leafhopper prey.     

Unidirectional prey-predator facilitation: apparent prey enhance predators' foraging success on cryptic prey

Food availability can strongly affect predator-prey dynamics. When change in habitat condition reduces the availability of one prey type, predators often search for other prey, perhaps in a different habitat. Interactions between behavioural and morphological traits of different prey may influence foraging success of visual predators through trait-mediated indirect interactions (TMIIs), such as prey activity and body coloration. We tested the hypothesis that foraging success of stream-dwelling cutthroat trout (Onchorhyncus clarki) on cryptically coloured, less-active benthic prey (larval mayfly; Paraleptophebia sp.) can be enhanced by the presence of distinctly coloured, active prey (larval stonefly shredder; Despaxia augusta). Cutthroat trout preyed on benthic insects when drifting invertebrates were unavailable. When stonefly larvae were present, the trout ate most of the stoneflies and also consumed a higher proportion of mayflies than under mayfly only treatment. The putative mechanism is that active stonefly larvae supplied visual cues to the predator that alerted trout to the mayfly larvae. Foraging success of visual predators on cryptic prey can be enhanced by distinctly coloured, active benthic taxa through unidirectional facilitation to the predators, which is a functional change of interspecific interaction caused by a third species. This study suggests that prey-predator facilitation through TMIIs can modify species interactions, affecting community dynamics.     

Ocean acidification and responses to predators: can sensory redundancy reduce the apparent impacts of elevated CO2 on fish?

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere and surface ocean are rising at an unprecedented rate due to sustained and accelerating anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Previous studies have documented that exposure to elevated CO₂ causes impaired antipredator behavior by coral reef fish in response to chemical cues associated with predation. However, whether ocean acidification will impair visual recognition of common predators is currently unknown. This study examined whether sensory compensation in the presence of multiple sensory cues could reduce the impacts of ocean acidification on antipredator responses. When exposed to seawater enriched with levels of CO₂ predicted for the end of this century (880 μatm CO₂), prey fish completely lost their response to conspecific alarm cues. While the visual response to a predator was also affected by high CO_2, it was not entirely lost. Fish exposed to elevated CO_2, spent less time in shelter than current‐day controls and did not exhibit antipredator signaling behavior (bobbing) when multiple predator cues were present. They did, however, reduce feeding rate and activity levels to the same level as controls. The results suggest that the response of fish to visual cues may partially compensate for the lack of response to chemical cues. Fish subjected to elevated CO₂ levels_, and exposed to chemical and visual predation cues simultaneously, responded with the same intensity as controls exposed to visual cues alone. However, these responses were still less than control fish simultaneously exposed to chemical and visual predation cues. Consequently, visual cues improve antipredator behavior of CO₂ exposed fish, but do not fully compensate for the loss of response to chemical cues. The reduced ability to correctly respond to a predator will have ramifications for survival in encounters with predators in the field, which could have repercussions for population replenishment in acidified oceans.     

Why are defensive toxins so variable? An evolutionary perspective

Defensive toxins are widely used by animals, plants and micro-organisms to deter natural enemies. An important characteristic of such defences is diversity both in the quantity of toxins and the profile of specific defensive chemicals present. Here we evaluate evolutionary and ecological explanations for the persistence of toxin diversity within prey populations, drawing together a range of explanations from the literature, and adding new hypotheses. We consider toxin diversity in three ways: (1) the absence of toxicity in a proportion of individuals in an otherwise toxic prey population (automimicry); (2) broad variation in quantities of toxin within individuals in the same population; (3) variation in the chemical constituents of chemical defence. For each of these phenomena we identify alternative evolutionary explanations for the persistence of variation. One important general explanation is diversifying (frequency- or density-dependent) selection in which either costs of toxicity increase or their benefits decrease with increases in the absolute or relative abundance of toxicity in a prey population. A second major class of explanation is that variation in toxicity profiles is itself nonadaptive. One application of this explanation requires that predator behaviour is not affected by variation in levels or profiles of chemical defence within a prey population, and that there are no cost differences between different quantities or forms of toxins found within a population. Finally, the ecology and life history of the animal may enable some general predictions about toxin variation. For example, in animals which only gain their toxins in their immature forms (e.g. caterpillars on host plants) we may expect a decline in toxicity during adult life (or at least no change). By contrast, when toxins are also acquired during the adult form, we may for example expect the converse, in which young adults have less time to acquire toxicity than older adults. One major conclusion that we draw is that there are good reasons to consider within-species variation in defensive toxins as more than mere ecological noise. Rather there are a number of compelling evolutionary hypotheses which can explain and predict variation in prey toxicity.