Warning signals evolve to disengage Batesian mimics

Prey that are unprofitable to attack are typically conspicuous in appearance. Conventional theory assumes that these warning signals have evolved in response to predator receiver biases. However, such biases might be a symptom rather than a cause of warning signals. We therefore examine an alternative theory: that conspicuousness evolves in unprofitable prey to avoid confusion with profitable prey. One might wonder why unprofitable prey do not find a cryptic means to be distinct from profitable prey, reducing both their risk of confusion with profitable prey and their rate of detection by predators. Here we present the first coevolutionary model to allow for Batesian mimicry and signals with different levels of detectability. We find that unprofitable prey do indeed evolve ways of distinguishing themselves using cryptic signals, particularly when appearance traits can evolve in multiple dimensions. However, conspicuous warning signals readily evolve in unprofitable prey when there are more ways to look different from the background than to match it. Moreover, the more unprofitable the prey species, the higher its evolved conspicuousness. Our results provide strong support for the argument that unprofitable species evolve conspicuous signals to avoid confusion with profitable prey and indicate that peak shift in conspicuousness-linked traits is a major factor in its establishment.     

Artificial neural networks and the study of evolution of prey coloration

In this paper, I investigate the use of artificial neural networks in the study of prey coloration. I briefly review the anti-predator functions of prey coloration and describe both in general terms and with help of two studies as specific examples the use of neural network models in the research on prey coloration. The first example investigates the effect of visual complexity of background on evolution of camouflage. The second example deals with the evolutionary choice of defence strategy, crypsis or aposematism. I conclude that visual information processing by predators is central in evolution of prey coloration. Therefore, the capability to process patterns as well as to imitate aspects of predator's information processing and responses to visual information makes neural networks a well-suited modelling approach for the study of prey coloration. In addition, their suitability for evolutionary simulations is an advantage when complex or dynamic interactions are modelled. Since not all behaviours of neural network models are necessarily biologically relevant, it is important to validate a neural network model with empirical data. Bringing together knowledge about neural networks with knowledge about topics of prey coloration would provide a potential way to deepen our understanding of the specific appearances of prey coloration.     

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.     

Diversity of warning signal and social interaction influences the evolution of imperfect mimicry

Mimicry, the resemblance of one species by another, is a complex phenomenon where the mimic (Batesian mimicry) or the model and the mimic (Mullerian mimicry) gain an advantage from this phenotypic convergence. Despite the expectation that mimics should closely resemble their models, many mimetic species appear to be poor mimics. This is particularly apparent in some systems in which there are multiple available models. However, the influence of model pattern diversity on the evolution of mimetic systems remains poorly understood. We tested whether the number of model patterns a predator learns to associate with a negative consequence affects their willingness to try imperfect, novel patterns. We exposed week‐old chickens to coral snake (Micrurus) color patterns representative of three South American areas that differ in model pattern richness, and then tested their response to the putative imperfect mimetic pattern of a widespread species of harmless colubrid snake (Oxyrhopus rhombifer) in different social contexts. Our results indicate that chicks have a great hesitation to attack when individually exposed to high model pattern diversity and a greater hesitation to attack when exposed as a group to low model pattern diversity. Individuals with a fast growth trajectory (measured by morphological traits) were also less reluctant to attack. We suggest that the evolution of new patterns could be favored by social learning in areas of low pattern diversity, while individual learning can reduce predation pressure on recently evolved mimics in areas of high model diversity. Our results could aid the development of ecological predictions about the evolution of imperfect mimicry and mimicry in general.     

Birds learn to avoid aposematic prey by using the appearance of host plants

Media player

Taste-rejection behaviour by predators can promote variability in prey defences

The evolution and maintenance of toxicity in a prey population is a challenge to evolutionary biologists if the investment in toxin does not benefit the individual. Recent experiments suggest that taste-rejection behaviour enables predators to selectively ingest less toxic individuals, which could stabilize investment in defences. However, we currently do not know if taste rejection of defended prey is accurate across different contexts, and that prey always benefit according to their investment. Using avian predators, we show that the rejection probability does not solely depend on the investment in defence by an individual, but also on the investment by other individuals in the same population. Therefore, taste rejection by predators could lead to destabilization in the investment in defences, and allow variability in prey defences to exist.     

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

Toxic prey that signal their defences to predators using conspicuous warning signals are called ‘aposematic’. Predators learn about the toxic content of aposematic prey and reduce their attacks on them. However, through regulating their toxin intake, predators will include aposematic prey in their diets when the benefits of gaining the nutrients they contain outweigh the costs of ingesting the prey''s toxins. Predators face a problem when managing their toxin intake: prey sharing the same warning signal often vary in their toxicities. Given that predators should avoid uncertainty when managing their toxin intake, we tested whether European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) preferred to eat fixed-defence prey (where all prey contained a 2% quinine solution) to mixed-defence prey (where half the prey contained a 4% quinine solution and the other half contained only water). Our results support the idea that predators should be more ‘risk-averse’ when foraging on variably defended prey and suggest that variation in toxicity levels could be a form of defence.     

Causes and Consequences of a Lack of Coevolution in Müllerian mimicry

Müllerian mimicry, in which both partners are unpalatable to predators, is often used as an example of a coevolved mutualism. However, it is theoretically possible that some Müllerian mimics are parasitic if a weakly defended mimic benefits at the expense of a more highly defended model, a phenomenon known as ‘quasi-Batesian mimicry’. The theory expounded by Müller and extended here for unequal unpalatability, on the other hand, suggests that quasi-Batesian mimicry should be rare in comparison with classical, or mutualistic Müllerian mimicry. Evolutionarily, quasi-Batesian mimicry has consequences similar to classical Batesian mimicry, including unilateral ‘advergence’ of the mimic to the model, and diversifying frequency-dependent selection on the mimic which may lead to mimetic polymorphism. In this paper, theory and empirical evidence for mutual benefit and coevolution in Müllerian mimicry are reviewed. I use examples from well-known insect Müllerian mimicry complexes: the Limenitis–Danaus (Nymphalidae) system in North America, the Bombus–Psithyrus (Apidae) system in the north temperate zone, and the Heliconius–Laparus (Nymphalidae) system in tropical America. These give abundant evidence for unilateral advergence, and no convincing evidence, to my knowledge, for coevolved mutual convergence. Furthermore, mimetic polymorphisms are not uncommon. Yet classical mutualistic Müllerian mimicry, coupled with spatial (and possibly temporal) variation in model abundances convincingly explain these apparent anomalies without recourse to a quasi-Batesian explanation. Nevertheless, the case against classical Müllerian mimicry is not totally disproved, and should be investigated further. I hope that this tentative analysis of actual mimicry rings may encourage others to look for evidence of coevolution and quasi-Batesian effects in a variety of other Müllerian mimicry systems. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Are aposematic signals honest? A review

We explore the relevance of honest signalling theory to the evolution of aposematism. We begin with a general consideration of models of signal stability, with a focus on the Zahavian costly signalling framework. Next, we review early models of signalling in the context of aposematism (some that are consistent and some inconsistent with costly honest signalling). We focus on controversies surrounding the idea that aposematic signals are handicaps in a Zahavian framework. Then, we discuss how the alignment of interests between signaller and predator influences the evolution of aposematism, highlight the distinction between qualitative and quantitative honesty and review theory and research relevant to these categories. We also review recent theoretical treatments of the evolution of aposematism that have focused on honest signalling as well as empirical research on a variety of organisms, including invertebrates and frogs. Finally, we discuss future directions for empirical and theoretical research in this area.     

Alternative prey can change model–mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism

Classical (conventional) Müllerian mimicry theory predicts that two (or more) defended prey sharing the same signal always benefit each other despite the fact that one species can be more toxic than the other. The quasi‐Batesian (unconventional) mimicry theory, instead, predicts that the less defended partner of the mimetic relationship may act as a parasite of the signal, causing a fitness loss to the model. Here we clarify the conditions for parasitic or mutualistic relationships between aposematic prey, and build a model to examine the hypothesis that the availability of alternative prey is crucial to Müllerian and quasi‐Batesian mimicry. Our model is based on optimal behaviour of the predator. We ask if and when it is in the interest of the predator to learn to avoid certain species as prey when there is alternative (cryptic) prey available. Our model clearly shows that the role of alternative prey must be taken into consideration when studying model–mimic dynamics. When food is scarce it pays for the predator to test the models and mimics, whereas if food is abundant predators should leave the mimics and models untouched even if the mimics are quite edible. Dynamics of the mimicry tend to be classically Müllerian if mimics are well defended, while quasi‐Batesian dynamics are more likely when they are relatively edible. However, there is significant overlap: in extreme cases mimics can be harmful to models (a quasi‐Batesian case) even if the species are equally toxic. A crucial parameter explaining this overlap is the search efficiency with which indiscriminating vs. discriminating predators find cryptic prey. Quasi‐Batesian mimicry becomes much more likely if discrimination increases the efficiency with which the specialized predator finds cryptic prey, while the opposite case tends to predict Müllerian mimicry. Our model shows that both mutualistic and parasitic relationship between model and mimic are possible and the availability of alternative prey can easily alter this relationship.     

The Evolution of Multimodal Warning Displays

Multimodal warning displays combine visual signals with components produced in other sensory modalities, for instance, aposematically coloured insects often produce a pungent odour or harsh sound when they are attacked. Recent research has focussed upon a particular odour, pyrazine, which is commonly associated with warning coloration. Our experiments have shown that pyrazine elicits hidden unlearned biases against particular visual aspects of food in foraging domestic chicks. Here we asses the current state of our knowledge about these biases, reviewing our results using pyrazine and other odours, and also presenting new data showing that sound can produce similar effects. We will discuss potential psychological mechanisms by which these foraging biases are achieved in avian predators, and potential pathways for their evolution. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Reactions of hand-reared and wild-caught predators toward warningly colored, gregarious, and conspicuous prey

Recently there has been debate over the importance of innateavoidance of aposematic prey by predators, particularly birds.There is evidence that the predators have innate or unlearned,thus, inherited avoidance against certain colors, but whetherthere is any innate avoidance against gregariousness or conspicuousnessis unclear. Previously predator behavior toward these charactersof aposematic prey have been tested in separate experiments.We designed an experiment to separate inheritance toward color,gregariousness, and conspiucuosness. We simultaneously offeredthe predators warningly colored and nonwarningly colored preyitems, both aggregated and solitary, on white (conspicuous)or brown (cryptic) backgrounds. The predators we used were naive (handraised), wild-caught yearling and adult great tits (Parus major L.).The results confirm previous results regarding the innate avoidanceof color. Naive predators seemed to have a genetically or culturallytransmitted avoidance of yellow and black prey compared to brownprey. Surprisingly, yearling wild-caught great tits were moreselective than adults, which did not show as strong avoidanceof yellow and black prey. More importantly, birds did not findgregarious prey more aversive than single prey, which indicatesthat grouping alone does not serve as an innate avoidance signal.Conspicuousness itself was not aversive to the predators. Ourresults suggest that the avoidance against a particular colorpattern probably has an inherited basis, whereas gregariousand conspicuous characters of prey presumably aid the avoidancelearning.     

Density-dependent effects of prey defences

In this study, we show that the protective advantage of a defence depends on prey density. For our investigations, we used the predator-prey model system Chaoborus-Daphnia pulex. The prey, D. pulex, forms neckteeth as an inducible defence against chaoborid predators. This morphological response effectively reduces predator attack efficiency, i.e. number of successful attacks divided by total number of attacks. We found that neckteeth-defended prey suffered a distinctly lower predation rate (prey uptake per unit time) at low prey densities. The advantage of this defence decreased with increasing prey density. We expect this pattern to be general when a defence reduces predator success rate, i.e. when a defence reduces encounter rate, probability of detection, probability of attack, or efficiency of attack. In addition, we experimentally simulated the effects of defences which increase predator digestion time by using different sizes of Daphnia with equal vulnerabilities. This type of defence had opposite density-dependent effects: here, the relative advantage of defended prey increased with prey density. We expect this pattern to be general for defences which increase predator handling time, i.e. defences which increase attacking time, eating time, or digestion time. Many defences will have effects on both predator success rate and handling time. For these defences, the predator’s functional response should be decreased over the whole range of prey densities. Received: 15 September 1999 / Accepted: 23 December 1999     

Learning of salient prey traits explains Batesian mimicry evolution

Batesian mimicry evolution involves an initial major mutation that produces a rough resemblance to the model, followed by smaller improving changes. To examine the learning psychology of this process, we applied established ideas about mimicry in Papilio polyxenes asterius of the model Battus philenor. We performed experiments with wild birds as predators and butterfly wings as semiartificial prey. Wings of hybrids of P. p. asterius and Papilio machaon were used to approximate the first mutant, with melanism as the hypothesized first mimetic trait. Based on previous results about learning psychology and imperfect mimicry, we predicted that: melanism should have high salience (i.e., being noticeable and prominent), meaning that predators readily discriminate a melanistic mutant from appearances similar to P. machaon; the difference between the first mutant and the model should have intermediate salience to allow further improvement of mimicry; and the final difference in appearance between P. p. asterius and B. philenor should have very low salience, causing improvement to level off. Our results supported both the traditional hypothesis and all our predictions about relative salience. We conclude that there is good agreement between long‐held ideas about how Batesian mimicry evolves and recent insights from learning psychology about the role of salience in mimicry evolution.     

The evolution of locomotory behavior in profitable and unprofitable simulated prey

Prey that are unprofitable to attack (for example, those containing noxious chemicals) frequently exhibit slower and more predicable movement than species that lack these defenses. Possible explanations for the phenomenon include a lack of selection pressure on unprofitable prey to avoid predators and active selection on unprofitable prey to advertise their noxiousness. We explicitly tested these and other hypotheses using a novel artificial world in which the locomotory characteristics (step size, waiting time, and angular direction) of artificial profitable and unprofitable computer-generated prey were subject to continued selection by humans over a number of generations. Unprofitable prey evolved significantly slower movement behavior than profitable prey when they were readily recognized as unprofitable, and also when they frequently survived predatory attacks. This difference arose primarily as a consequence of more intense selection on profitable prey to avoid capture. When unprofitable prey were very similar (but not identical) in morphological appearance to profitable prey, unprofitable prey evolved particularly slow movement behavior, presumably because when they were slow-moving they could be more readily recognized as being unprofitable. When unprofitable prey were constrained to move slowly, a morphologically identical profitable prey species evolved locomotor mimicry only when it had no more effective means of avoiding predation. Overall, our results provide some of the first empirical support for a number of earlier hypotheses for differences in movement between unprofitable and profitable prey and demonstrate that locomotor mimicry is not an inevitable outcome of selection even in morphologically similar prey.