Glow-worm larvae bioluminescence (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) operates as an aposematic signal upon toads (Bufo bufo)

It is an established fact that the spectacular bioluminescentdisplays of adult fireflies and glow-worms are used as courtshipsignals; however, the survival value of the glowing behaviorof their larvae remained the subject of speculation for manyyears. Our study is the first that demonstrates that lampyridlarvae use luminescence to signal unpalatability to nocturnal,visually guided predators. Wild-caught toads (Bufo bufo) weremore reluctant to attack luminescent artificial prey, and weshow that avoidance learning increased this reluctance. Afterbeing exposed to glow-worm larvae (Lampyris noctiluca), whichthe toads experienced as disagreeable, attack latencies to luminescentprey increased, but not those to nonglowing prey. Not all toadsshowed avoidance learning to the same extent, because of eitherdifferences in previous experience with glow-worms or differencesin memory.     

Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey

Toxic prey advertise their unprofitability to predators via conspicuous aposematic coloration [1]. It is widely accepted that avoidance learning by naive predators is fundamental in generating selection for aposematism [2, 3] and mimicry [4, 5] (where species share the same aposematic coloration), and consequently this cognitive process underpins current evolutionary theory [5, 6]. However, this is an oversimplistic view of predator cognition and decision making. We show that predators that have learned to avoid chemically defended prey continue to attack defended individuals at levels determined by their current toxin burden. European starlings learned to discriminate between sequentially presented defended and undefended mealworms with different color signals. Once birds had learned to avoid the defended prey at a stable asymptotic level, we experimentally increased their toxin burdens, which reduced the number of defended prey that they ingested in the subsequent trial. This was due to the birds making strategic decisions to ingest defended prey on the basis of their visual signals. Birds are clearly able to learn about the nutritional benefits and defensive costs of eating defended prey, and they regulate their intake according to their current physiological state. This raises new perspectives on the evolution of aposematism, mimicry, and defense chemistry.     

The coevolution of warning signals

It has long been recognized that defended prey tend to be conspicuous. Current theories suggest that the association ('aposematism') has arisen because predators more readily learn to avoid attacking defended phenotypes when they are conspicuous. In this paper, I consider why such psychology has evolved. In particular, I argue that aposematism may have evolved not because of an independent and pre-existing receiver bias, but because the conspicuousness of a prey item provides a reliable indicator of its likelihood of being defended. To develop my case I consider how warning signals might coevolve in a system containing a number of predators, whose foraging behaviour is also subject to selection. In these cases, models readily show that the greater the conspicuousness of a novel prey item, the more likely that it has been encountered by other predators and survived. As a consequence, naive predators should be less likely to attack highly conspicuous novel prey on encounter, or at least more inclined to attack them cautiously. This adaptive predator behaviour will greatly facilitate the spread of aposematic phenotypes from extreme rarity, which in turn will enhance selection for forms of predator behaviour under which aposematism will coevolve even more readily.     

Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence

Avian predators learn to avoid defended insects on the basis of their conspicuous warning coloration. In many aposematic species, the level of chemical defence varies, with some individuals being more defended than others. Sequestration and production of defence chemicals is often costly and therefore less defended individuals enjoy the benefits of the warning signal without paying the full costs of chemical production. This is a fundamental theoretical problem for the evolutionary stability of aposematism, since less defended individuals appear to be at a selective advantage. However, if predators sample aposematic prey and selectively reject individuals on the basis of their chemical investment, aposematism could become evolutionarily stable. Previous research aimed at testing whether birds can use taste to discriminate between palatable and unpalatable prey has been confounded by other experimental factors. Here, we show that birds can taste and reject prey entirely on the basis of an individual's level of chemical defence and more importantly, they can make decisions on whether or not to consume a defended individual based upon their level of chemical investment. We discuss these results in relation to the evolution of aposematism, mimicry and defence chemistry.     

Evolving détente: the origin of warning signals via concurrent reciprocal selection

Casualties and impediments inflicted on consumers by defended prey, and vice versa, may be averted by vocalizations, postures, coloration, scents, and other warning, or so‐called aposematic, displays. The existence of aposematic signals has challenged biologists who have sought plausible mechanisms for their evolution. Here, we elaborate on the rationale for the hypothesis that aposematic signals arise via concurrent reciprocal selection (CRS) enacted between inimical signal receivers and signal emitters, where signal emitters, e.g., defended prey, select against non‐discriminating signal receivers, e.g., predators, and signal receivers select against unrecognized signal emitters. It is postulated that this mutual selective interaction culminates in the survival of discriminating signal receivers that avoid signal emitters, and recognized (distinctive) signal emitters that are avoided by signal receivers. A CRS hypothesis for the evolution of aposematism, therefore, maintains that distinctive features of prey arise in response to selection imposed by consumers, and that avoidances of those features by consumers arise in response to selection imposed by defended prey. We discuss the plausible inception of aposematism via CRS in light of related hypotheses, and describe points of concordance with previous observations and suggestions on the origin of aposematism. Aposematism arising via CRS is not contingent upon the relatedness of signallers, aversions acquired by learning, or other conditions postulated for some other evolutionary hypotheses. CRS is a credible alternative hypothesis for the evolution of warning signals in diverse consumer‐prey interactions.     

The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defense

It is widely argued that defended prey have tended to evolve conspicuous traits because predators more readily learn to avoid defended prey when they are conspicuous. However, a rival theory proposes that defended prey have evolved such characters because it allows them to be distinguished from undefended prey. Here we investigated how the attributes of defended (unprofitable) and undefended (profitable) computer-generated prey species tended to evolve when they were subject to selection by foraging humans. When cryptic forms of defended and undefended species were similar in appearance but their conspicuous forms were not, defended prey became conspicuous while undefended prey remained cryptic. Indeed, in all of our experiments, defended prey invariably evolved any trait that enabled them to be distinguished from undefended prey, even if such traits were cryptic. When conspicuous mutants of defended prey were extremely rare, they frequently overcame their initial disadvantage by chance. When Batesian mimicry of defended species was possible, defended prey evolved unique traits or characteristics that would make undefended prey vulnerable. Overall, our work supports the contention that warning signals are selected for their reliability as indicators of defense rather than to capitalize on any inherent educational biases of predators.     

Identifying the ecological conditions that select for intermediate levels of aposematic signalling

Chemically defended species often have conspicuous signals that warn potential predators of these defences. Recent evidence suggests that some such aposematic prey are not as conspicuous as possible, even though increased conspicuousness would bring additional anti-predator benefits. Here we present a simple model to explore the generality of these observations. Our model predicts that optimal fitness will often be achieved at an intermediate level of conspicuousness and not simply by maximising conspicuousness. This comes about because of the ubiquitous trade-off that increased conspicuousness has an ecological cost in increasing the encounter rate with predators, as well as a benefit in terms of enhancing learned aversion by predators of defended prey. However, importantly, we also predict that a small deviation away from maximal crypsis generally causes a decrease in fitness, even if a larger deviation would lead to an intermediate level of conspicuousness that maximises fitness. Hence, further consideration of whether intermediate levels of aposematism are as common in nature as predicted in this model will require consideration of the underlying evolution of appearance, and the plausibility of evolution across the fitness trough, from maximal crypsis to an intermediate level of aposematism.     

Conditions for the spread of conspicuous warning signals: a numerical model with novel insights

The initial evolution of conspicuous warning signals presents an evolutionary problem because selection against rare conspicuous signals is presumed to be strong, and new signals are rare when they first arise. Several possible solutions have been offered to solve this apparent evolutionary paradox, but disagreement persists over the plausibility of some of the proposed mechanisms. In this paper, we construct a deterministic numerical simulation model that allows us to derive the strength of selection on novel warning signals in a wide range of biologically relevant situations. We study the effects of predator psychology (learning, rate of mistaken attacks, and neophobia) on selection. We also study the how prey escape, predation intensity, number of predators, and abundance of different prey types affects selection. The model provides several important results. Selection on novel warning signals is number rather than frequency dependent. In most cases, there exists a threshold number of aposematic individuals below which aposematism is selected against and above which aposematism is selected for. Signal conspicuousness (which increases detection rate) and distinctiveness (which allows predator to distinguish defended from nondefended prey) have opposing effects on evolution of warning signals. A more conspicuous warning signal cannot evolve unless it makes the prey more distinctive from palatable prey, reducing mistaken attacks by predators. A novel warning signal that is learned quickly can spread from lower abundance more easily than a signal that is learned more slowly. However, the relative rate at which the resident signal and the novel signal are learned is irrelevant for the spread of the novel signal. Long-lasting neophobia can facilitate the spread of novel warning signals. Individual selection via the ability of defended prey to escape from predator is not likely to facilitate evolution of conspicuous warning signals if both the resident (cryptic) morph and the novel morph have the same escape probability. Predation intensity (defined as the proportion of palatable prey eaten by the predator) has a strong effect on selection. More intense predation results in strong selection against rare signals, but also strong selective advantage to common signals. The threshold number of aposematic individuals is lower when predation is intense. Thus, the evolution of warning signals may be more likely in environments where predation is intense. The effect of numbers of predators depends on whether predation intensity also changes. When predation intensity is constant, increasing numbers of predators raises the threshold number of aposematic individuals, and thus makes evolution of aposematism more difficult. If predation intensity increases in parallel with number of predators, the threshold number of aposematic individuals does not change much, but selection becomes more intense on both sides of the threshold.     

Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals

Conspicuous warning signals of unprofitable prey are a defense against visually hunting predators. They work because predators learn to associate unprofitability with bright coloration and because strong signals are detectable and memorable. However, many species that can be considered defended are not very conspicuous; they have weak warning signals. This phenomenon has previously been ignored in models and experiments. In addition, there is significant within- and among-species variation among predators in their search behavior, in their visual, cognitive, and learning abilities, and in their resistance to defenses. In this article we explore the effects of variable predators on models that combine positive frequency-dependent, frequency-independent, and negative frequency-dependent predation and show that weak signaling of aposematic species can evolve if predators vary in their tendency to attack defended prey.     

Evolutionary implications of the form of predator generalization for aposematic signals and mimicry in prey

Generalization is at the heart of many aspects of behavioral ecology; for foragers it can be seen as an essential feature of learning about potential prey, because natural populations of prey are unlikely to be perfectly homogenous. Aposematic signals are considered to aid predators in learning to avoid a class of defended prey. Predators do this by generalizing between the appearance of prey they have previously sampled and the appearance of prey they subsequently encounter. Mimicry arises when such generalization occurs between individuals of different species. Our aim here is to explore whether the specific shape of the generalization curve can be expected to be important for theoretical predictions relating to the evolution of aposematism and mimicry. We do this by a reanalysis and development of the models provided in two recent papers. We argue that the shape of the generalization curve, in combination with the nature of genetic and phenotypic variation in prey traits, can have evolutionary significance under certain delineated circumstances. We also demonstrate that the process of gradual evolution of Müllerian mimicry proposed by Fisher is particularly efficient in populations with a rich supply of standing genetic variation in mimetic traits.     

Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation

Defended insects often advertise their unprofitability to potential predators using conspicuous aposematic coloration. Many aposematic insects are also gregarious, and it has been suggested that the aggregation of defended prey may have facilitated the evolution of aposematic coloration. Empirical studies have demonstrated that birds are more wary of aggregated aposematic prey, and learn to avoid them more quickly than solitary prey. However, many aposematic insects survive being attacked by birds, and the effect of aggregation on post-attack survival has not previously been investigated. Using domestic chicks as predators and artificially manipulated mealworms as prey, we provide empirical evidence that predators attack aggregated aposematic prey more forcefully than solitary prey, reducing the likelihood of prey surviving an attack. Hence, we suggest that previous works concluding that aggregation was an important pre-requisite for the evolution of aposematism may have overestimated the fitness benefits of aggregation, since aggregated prey may be attacked less but are also less likely to survive an attack.     

Numbers,neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?

Many chemically defended aposematic species are characterized by relatively low toxin levels, which enables predators to include them in their diets under certain circumstances. Knowledge of the conditions governing the survival of such prey animals—especially in the context of the co‐occurrence of similar but undefended prey, which may result in mimicry‐like interactions—is crucial for understanding the initial evolution of aposematism. In a one‐month outdoor experiment using fish (the common carp Cyprinus carpio) as predators, we examined the survival of moderately defended aposematic tadpole prey (the European common toad Bufo bufo) with varying absolute densities in single‐species prey systems or varying relative densities in two‐species prey systems containing morphologically similar but undefended prey (the European common frog Rana temporaria). The density effects were investigated in conjunction with the hunger levels of the predator, which were manipulated by means of the addition of alternative (nontadpole) food. The survival of the B. bufo tadpoles was promoted by increasing their absolute density in the single‐species prey systems, increasing their relative density in the two‐species prey systems, and providing ample alternative food for the predator. Hungry predators eliminated all R. temporaria individuals regardless of their proportion in the prey community; in treatments with ample alternative food, high relative B. bufo density supported R. temporaria survival. The results demonstrated that moderately defended prey did benefit from high population densities (both absolute and relative), even under long‐term predation pressure. However, the physiological state of the predator was a crucial factor in the survival of moderately defended prey. While the availability of alternative prey in general should promote the spread and maintenance of aposematism, the results indicated that the resemblance between the co‐occurring defended and undefended prey may impose mortality costs on the defended model species, even in the absence of actual mimicry.     

THE DUAL BENEFITS OF APOSEMATISM: PREDATOR AVOIDANCE AND ENHANCED RESOURCE COLLECTION

Theories of aposematism often focus on the idea that warning displays evolve because they work as effective signals to predators. Here, we argue that aposematism may instead evolve because, by enhancing protection, it enables animals to become more exposed and thereby gain resource‐gathering benefits, for example, through a wider foraging niche. Frequency‐dependent barriers (caused by enhanced conspicuousness relative to other prey and low levels of predator education) are generally assumed to make the evolution of aposematism particularly challenging. Using a deterministic, evolutionary model we show that aposematic display could evolve relatively easily if it enabled prey to move more freely around their environments, or become exposed in some other manner that provides fitness benefits unrelated to predation risk. Furthermore, the model shows that the traits of aposematic conspicuousness and behavior which lead to raised exposure positively affect each other, so that the optimal level of both tends to increase when the traits exist together, compared to when they exist in isolation. We discuss the ecological and evolutionary consequences of aposematism. One conclusion is that aposematism could be a key evolutionary innovation, because by widening habitat use it may promote adaptive radiation as a byproduct of enhanced ecological opportunity.     

Why aren't warning signals everywhere? On the prevalence of aposematism and mimicry in communities

Warning signals are a striking example of natural selection present in almost every ecological community – from Nordic meadows to tropical rainforests, defended prey species and their mimics ward off potential predators before they attack. Yet despite the wide distribution of warning signals, they are relatively scarce as a proportion of the total prey available, and more so in some biomes than others. Classically, warning signals are thought to be governed by positive density-dependent selection, i.e. they succeed better when they are more common. Therefore, after surmounting this initial barrier to their evolution, it is puzzling that they remain uncommon on the scale of the community. Here, we explore factors likely to determine the prevalence of warning signals in prey assemblages. These factors include the nature of prey defences and any constraints upon them, the behavioural interactions of predators with different prey defences, the numerical responses of predators governed by movement and reproduction, the diversity and abundance of undefended alternative prey and Batesian mimics in the community, and variability in other ecological circumstances. We also discuss the macroevolution of warning signals. Our review finds that we have a basic understanding of how many species in some taxonomic groups have warning signals, but very little information on the interrelationships among population abundances across prey communities, the diversity of signal phenotypes, and prey defences. We also have detailed knowledge of how a few generalist predator species forage in artificial laboratory environments, but we know much less about how predators forage in complex natural communities with variable prey defences. We describe how empirical work to address each of these knowledge gaps can test specific hypotheses for why warning signals exhibit their particular patterns of distribution. This will help us to understand how behavioural interactions shape ecological communities.     

Warning displays in spiny animals: one (more) evolutionary route to aposematism

To date, theoretical or laboratory simulations of aposematic evolution in prey animals have focused narrowly on internally stored chemical defense as the source of unprofitability and ignore aposematic advertisement of physical defenses such as spines (and defensive hairs, claws, etc.). This has occurred even though aposematism in spiny animals has been recognized since the 19th century. In this paper we present the first detailed theoretical consideration of aposematism in spiny animals, focusing on questions of initial evolution, costs of display, and coevolution of displays with defenses. Using an individual-based evolutionary model, we found that spines (or similar physical defenses) can easily evolve without aposematism, but when spines do evolve, aposematic displays can also easily evolve if they help to make the prey animal distinctive and if they draw attention to the physical threat. When aposematic displays evolve, they cause reduced investment in costly spines, so that, in addition to signaling unprofitability, aposematic display may enhance the cost-effectiveness of antipredator defenses (one exception to this conclusion is if the display is itself as costly as the defense). For animals with stinging spines, combining physical and chemical defense, the evolution of aposematic display may lead to reduced investment in the toxin compared to the spine. This occurs because spines act as both secondary (repellent) defenses and as primary defenses (their own visible, honest advertisement), whereas internally stored toxins only (generally) act as repellent secondary defenses. We argue that conspicuous aposematism in spines functions as an attention-getting mechanism, whereas conspicuous aposematic display in purely toxic animals may be explained by signal reliability arguments. Finally, one (more) route by which aposematism may initially evolve is by spiny rather than purely chemically defended species, spreading to species with other forms of secondary defense as the signal becomes common.     

Aversive reactions of two invertebrate predators to European red–black insects

Prey species gain protection by imitating signals of unpalatable models in defensive mimicry. Mimics have been traditionally classified as Batesian (palatable mimic resembling an unpalatable model) or Müllerian (unpalatable mimic resembling a similarly unpalatable model). However, recent studies suggest that rather than discrete categories, the phenomenon of mimicry can be better understood as a continuum. The level of unpalatability of defended prey is a key factor in determining the type of mimetic relationship. Herein, we used insects (ladybugs and true bugs) from a putative European “red–black” mimetic complex as experimental models of defended species and crickets as a control prey. We offered the prey to two species of sympatric invertebrate predators (praying mantis and spider) and video recorded the interactions. We tested three alternative hypotheses, namely (i) the three red–black species tested are similarly defended against both predators; (ii) some red–black species are better defended than others against both predator species, and (iii) the effectiveness of the red–black species defenses is predator dependent. Both predators attacked all prey types with a similar frequency. But while all three red–black species similarly elicited aversive behaviors in spiders, the mantises' aversive reactions varied depending on the prey species. Our results provide support to the third hypothesis, suggesting that the same prey species can fall into different parts of the spectrum of palatability–unpalatability depending on the type of predator.     

Tiger moths and the threat of bats: decision-making based on the activity of a single sensory neuron

Echolocating bats and eared moths are a model system of predator–prey interaction within an almost exclusively auditory world. Through selective pressures from aerial-hawking bats, noctuoid moths have evolved simple ears that contain one to two auditory neurons and function to detect bat echolocation calls and initiate defensive flight behaviours. Among these moths, some chemically defended and mimetic tiger moths also produce ultrasonic clicks in response to bat echolocation calls; these defensive signals are effective warning signals and may interfere with bats'' ability to process echoic information. Here, we demonstrate that the activity of a single auditory neuron (the A1 cell) provides sufficient information for the toxic dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera, to decide when to initiate defensive sound production in the face of bats. Thus, despite previous suggestions to the contrary, these moths'' only other auditory neuron, the less sensitive A2 cell, is not necessary for initiating sound production. However, we found a positive linear relationship between combined A1 and A2 activity and the number of clicks the dogbane tiger moth produces.     

Antagonistic evolution in an aposematic predator–prey signaling system

Warning signals within species, such as the bright colors of chemically defended animals, are usually considered mutualistic, monomorphic traits. Such a view is however increasingly at odds with the growing empirical literature, showing nontrivial levels of signal variation within prey populations. Key to understanding this variation, we argue, could be a recognition that toxicity levels frequently vary within populations because of environmental heterogeneity. Inequalities in defense may undermine mutualistic monomorphic signaling, causing evolutionary antagonism between loci that determine appearance of less well‐defended and better defended prey forms within species. In this article, we apply a stochastic model of evolved phenotypic plasticity to the evolution of prey signals. We show that when toxicity levels vary, then antagonistic interactions can lead to evolutionary conflict between alleles at different signaling loci, causing signal evolution, “red queen‐like” evolutionary chase, and one or more forms of signaling equilibria. A key prediction is that variation in the way that predators use information about toxicity levels in their attack behaviors profoundly affects the evolutionary characteristics of the prey signaling systems. Environmental variation is known to cause variation in many qualities that organisms signal; our approach may therefore have application to other signaling systems.     

Non-warning odors trigger innate color aversions--as long as they are novel

Warning signals made by unpalatable insects to potential predatorscommonly target more than one sense: such signals are "multimodal." Pyrazines are odors produced by warningly colored insects whenattacked, and have been shown to interact with food coloration,biasing avian predators against novel and typically aposematicfood. However, at present it is not known whether this is anadaptation by prey to exploit a general feature of avian psychology,or an evolutionary response by birds to enhance their avoidanceof unpalatable prey. Here we investigate the effect of otherodors on the innate responses of naive domestic chicks (Gallusgallus domesticus) to food that is of novel color, or of acolor that is associated with warning coloration, yellow. Inthe first experiment, we demonstrate that natural and artificialodors that have no association with aposematism in the wildcan produce biases against both novel colored foods and yellowcolored foods. In a second experiment, we also show that odor novelty is vital for eliciting such effects. These results supportthe idea that warning odors have evolved in response to preexistingpsychological biases against novel odors in predators, ratherthan predators evolving specific responses against odors associatedwith unpalatable prey.     

The complex business of survival by aposematism

The theory of warning signals dates back to Wallace but is still confusing, controversial and complex. Because predator avoidance of warningly coloured prey (aposematism) is based upon learning and reinforcement, it is difficult to understand how initially rare conspicuous forms subsequently become common. Here, we discuss several possible resolutions to this apparent paradox. Many of these ideas have been largely ignored as a result of implicit assumptions about predator behaviour and assumed lack of variation in the predators, prey and the predation process. Considering the spatial and temporal variation in and mechanisms of behaviour of both predators and prey will make it easier to understand the process and evolution of aposematism.