Learning and memory in mimicry: II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum?

The evolution of mimicry is driven by the behaviour of predators. However, there has been little systematic testing of the sensitivity of evolutionary predictions to variations in assumptions about predator learning and forgetting. To test how robust mimicry theory is to such behavioural modifications we combined sets of rules describing ways in which learning and forgetting might operate in vertebrate predators into 29 computer predator behaviour systems. These systems were applied in simulations of simplified natural mimicry situations, particularly investigating the nature of density-dependence and the benefits and losses conferred by mimicry across a spectrum of payabilities. The classical Batesian-Muellerian spectrum was generated only by two of our 29 predator behaviour systems. Both of these ‘classical predators' had extreme asymptotes of learning and fixed rate, time dependent forgetting. All edible mimics were treated by them as Batesian in that they parasitized their model's protection and had positive monotonic effects of density on model-mimic attack rates. All defended mimics were treated as Muellerian (Mullerian) in that their presence benefited their Model's protection, and showed negative monotonic density effects on attack rates. With the remaining 27 systems Batesian or Muellerian relationships extended beyond their conventional edibility boundaries. In some cases, Muellerian mimicry extended into the edible region of the ‘palatability spectrum’ (we term this quasi-Muellerian mimicry), and in others Batesian mimicry extended into the ‘unpalatable’, defended half of the spectrum (quasi-Batesian mimicry). Although most of the 29 behaviour systems included at least some regions of true Batesian and Muellerian mimicries, if forgetting was triggered by avoidance events (as suggested by J.E. Huheey) rather than by the passage of time then the mimicry spectrum excluded Mullerian mimicry altogether, and was composed of Batesian and quasi-Batesian mimicries. In addition the classical prediction of monotonic density-dependent predation was shown not to be robust against variations in the forgetting algorithm. Time based forgetting which is retarded by observations of prey, or which varies its rate according to the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of a prey generates non-monotonic results. At low mimic densities there is a positive effect on attack rates and at higher densities a negative effect. Overall, the mode of forgetting has a more significant effect on mimetic relationships than the rate of learning. It seems to matter little whether learning and forgetting are switched or gradual functions. Predictions about mimetic evolution are therefore sensitive to assumptions about predator behaviour, though more so to variations in forgetting than learning rate. Based on findings from animal psychology and mimetic populations, we are able to rule out a number of predator behaviour systems. We suggest that the most credible of our 29 predators are those which generate results which incorporate Batesian, quasi-Batesian and Muellerian mimicries across the ‘palatability spectrum’.     

State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey

Even defended prey items may contain nutrients that can sustain predators in times of energetic need. Conversely, a well-fed predator might be expected to avoid attacking prey items that have a chance of being defended, particularly if there is an abundance of familiar palatable prey to support it. To further understand the implications of optimal state-dependent foraging behaviour by predators in systems that contain defended prey, I developed a stochastic dynamic programming model. This state-dependent approach formally accounts for the trade-off between avoiding starvation and minimising harm from attacking defended prey. It predicts that the mean attack probability of predators on defended models and their undefended mimics should decline in a sigmoidal fashion with increasing availability of alternative undefended prey, and that the foraging decisions of predators should in general be relatively insensitive to the probability that a potentially defended prey item is indeed defended. Some implications of these predictions are that conspicuous warning signals are more likely to evolve in systems that contain an abundance of alternative undefended prey, and that imperfect mimicry will provide almost complete protection to the mimic when predators are readily supported by alternative food sources. Somewhat surprisingly, increasing the density of nutritious undefended mimics while keeping the densities of all other prey types constant tended to decrease the attack rates of predators on encounter with mimics and their defended models. This increase in dietary conservatism arose because in these cases there would be more prey available to sustain the predator if it ever found itself critically low in energy.     

The optimal sampling strategy for unfamiliar prey

Precisely how predators solve the problem of sampling unfamiliar prey types is central to our understanding of the evolution of a variety of antipredator defenses, ranging from Müllerian mimicry to polymorphism. When predators encounter a novel prey item then they must decide whether to take a risk and attack it, thereby gaining a potential meal and valuable information, or avoid such prey altogether. Moreover, if predators initially attack the unfamiliar prey, then at some point(s) they should decide to cease sampling if evidence mounts that the type is on average unprofitable to attack. Here, I cast this problem as a "two-armed bandit," the standard metaphor for exploration-exploitation trade-offs. I assume that as predators encounter and attack unfamiliar prey they use Bayesian inference to update both their beliefs as to the likelihood that individuals of this type are chemically defended, and the probability of seeing the prey type in the future. I concurrently use dynamic programming to identify the critical informational states at which predator should cease sampling. The model explains why predators sample more unprofitable prey before complete rejection when the prey type is common and explains why predators exhibit neophobia when the unfamiliar prey type is perceived to be rare.     

How weird can mimicry get?

Classical mimicry theory distinguishes clearly between the mutualistic resemblance between two or more defended species (muellerian mimicry), and the parasitic resemblance of a palatable species to a defended species (batesian mimicry). Modelling the behaviour of predators, without initially taking ecological complications into account, is a good strategy for exploring whether this division is valid. Two such behavioural models are described: conditioning theory, which simulates changes in motivational attack levels according to the norms of current learning theory; and saturation theory, which considers how a predator may become saturated with a particular toxic compound, and then cease feeding on the prey species that delivers it. This effect is to be clearly distinguished from simple satiation. Most formulations of the conditioning model allow the direction of reinforcement produced by a particular prey to change according the predator's current state of motivation: this leads to the existence of quasi-batesian mimicry, a parasitic mimicry between two species that could both be described as defended. At high densities, two prey species that share a chemical defense will be ‘muellerian mutualists’, mutually protecting each other against predators that have been saturated with the defensive compound. This mutualism may be accompanied by true muellerian mimicry of the colour patterns, or the patterns may be completely different. This can therefore be regarded as a form of mimicry in a non-visual communication channel. Even an apparently palatable prey species may be effectively unavailable to predators if its density is such as to deliver a particular nutrient in excess of the predator's need for a balanced diet. Such a nutrient in effect becomes a toxin, and such an abundant prey species would be partly defended and potentially able to act as the model in a mimicry system. Thus there might be protective mimicry between ‘palatable’ species, and a ‘palatable’ species might even function as the model for a ‘defended’ mimic. These unorthodox kinds of mimicry probably exist transiently during fluctuations of prey populations. It is less likely that these conditions persist for long enough to induce the evolution of mimicry, and the relationships perhaps usually occur when mimicry already exists for other reasons. Mimicry rings may be mutually stabilised by a combination of toxic mutualism and the exchange of species between the rings. Colour polymorphism in a defended species is strictly neutral whenever the population is dense enough to saturate the predator. This, as well as quasi-batesian mimicry, may help to explain the minority of warningly coloured species that are polymorphic. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences

Inexperienced predators are assumed to select for similarity of warning signals in aposematic species (Müllerian mimicry) when learning to avoid them. Recent theoretical work predicts that if co-mimic species have unequal defences, predators attack them according to their average unpalatability and mimicry may not be beneficial for the better defended co-mimic. In this study, we tested in a laboratory environment whether a uniform warning signal is superior to a variable one in promoting predator learning, and simultaneously whether co-mimics are preyed upon according to their average unpalatability. There was an interaction of signal variation and unpalatability but inexperienced birds did not select for signal similarity in artificial prey; when the prey was moderately defended a variable signal was even learnt faster than a uniform one. Due to slow avoidance learning, moderately defended prey had higher mortality than highly defended prey (although this was not straightforward), but mixing high and moderate unpalatability did not increase predation compared with high unpalatability. This does not support the view that predators are sensitive to varying unpalatability. The results suggest that inexperienced predators may neither strongly select for accurate Müllerian mimicry nor affect the benefits of mimicry when the co-mimics are unequally defended.     

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.     

Mimicry between unequally defended prey can be parasitic: evidence for quasi-Batesian mimicry

The nature of signal mimicry between defended prey (known as Müllerian mimicry) is controversial. Some authors assert that it is always mutualistic and beneficial, whilst others speculate that less well defended prey may be parasitic and degrade the protection of their better defended co-mimics (quasi-Batesian mimicry). Using great tits (Parus major) as predators of artificial prey, we show that mimicry between unequally defended co-mimics is not mutualistic, and can be parasitic and quasi-Batesian. We presented a fixed abundance of a highly defended model and a moderately defended dimorphic (mimic and distinct non-mimetic) species, and varied the relative frequency of the two forms of the moderately defended prey. As the mimic form increased in abundance, per capita predation on the model-mimic pair increased. Furthermore, when mimics were rare they gained protection from predation but imposed no co-evolutionary pressure on models. We found that the feeding decisions of the birds were affected by their individual toxic burdens, consistent with the idea that predators make foraging decisions which trade-off toxicity and nutrition. This result suggests that many prey species that are currently assumed to be in a simple mutualistic mimetic relationship with their co-mimic species may actually be engaged in an antagonistic co-evolutionary process.     

Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory

This review identifies four receiver psychology perspectives that are likely to be important in the design and evolution of warning signals. Three of these perspectives (phobia, learning and prey recognition) have been studied in detail, and I include a brief review of recent work. The fourth, a memory perspective, has received little attention and is developed here. A memory perspective asks, 'how might warning signals function to reduce forgetting of avoidances between encounters?'. To answer this question I review data from psychology literature that describe important features of animal long-term memory. These data suggest that components of warning signals may function to reduce forgetting (and therefore increase memorability) by (1) preventing forgetting of learnt prey discriminations; (2) jogging the memories of forgetful predators; and (3) biasing forgetting in favour of prey avoidance when the warning signal of a defended aposematic species is copied by an edible Batesian mimic. A combination of a learning and a memory perspective suggests that the features of aposematic prey that accelerate avoidance learning may also be the features that decelerate forgetting processes. If correct, this would have important implications for the comprehension of signal design. Finally, I suggest that the cryptic appearance of an edible prey may decelerate predator learning and accelerate predator forgetting, to the benefit of the prey. In terms of learning and memory, crypsis may be an antisignal. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

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.     

Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour

Müllerian mimicry is typically thought to arise as a consequence of defended prey species adopting a similar way of signalling their unprofitability, thereby reducing the costs of predator education. Here we consider subsequent selection on the morphology of prey species, in the potentially lengthy period of time when predators are generally aware of the noxious qualities of their prey (and so no further learning is involved). Using a pair of stochastic dynamic programming equations which describe both the toxin burdens of a predator and its energy level, we identified the optimal state-dependent rules that maximize a predator's long-term survivorship, and examined the implications of this behaviour for the evolution of prey morphologies. When palatable prey are in short supply then those prey species which contain relatively low doses of toxins become profitable to consume by hungry predators. Under these conditions, a weakly defended prey could gain selective advantage in the post educational period by resembling a prey species which contained a higher dose of the same or different toxins, although the precise nature of the ecological relationship between model and mimic could either be mutualistic or parasitic depending on how mimic density increases when favoured by selection. Our work formally demonstrates that one does not always need to invoke educational effects to explain why two or more unpalatable species have evolved a similar appearance, or to explain why mimetic similarity among distasteful species is maintained over time. When two species contain high levels of different toxins then they may gain mutual advantage by resembling one another, not only by educating the predator as to their common unprofitability (classical Müllerian mimicry), but also by increasing predator uncertainty as to the specific kind of toxin a prey item contains.     

Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism?

The evolution of aposematism is difficult to explain because: (1) new aposematic morphs will be relatively rare and thus risk extinction during predator education; and (2) aposematic morphs lack the protection of crypsis, and thus appear to invite attacks. I describe a simple method for evaluating whether rare aposematic morphs may be selectively advantaged by their effects on predator psychologies. Using a simulated virtual predator, I consider the advantages that might accrue to dispersed and aggregated morphs if aposematic prey can cause neophobic avoidance, accelerate avoidance learning and decelerate predator forgetting. Simulations show that aposematism is very hard to explain unless there are particular combinations of ecological and psychological factors. If prey are dispersed throughout a locality then aposematism will be favoured only if (1) there is neophobia, learning effects and forgetting or if (2) there are learning effects and warning signals reduce forgetting rates. However, the best scenario for aposematic advantage involves learning rates, forgetting and neophobia when prey are aggregated. Prey aggregation has two important effects. First, it is a highly effective way to maximize the per capita benefits of the neophobia. Second, after an attack on a single prey the benefits of learnt aversions will be immediately conferred on the surviving members of an aggregation without the diluting effects of forgetting. Aggregation therefore provides good protection against forgetting. The simulations thus provide new insights into the complexities of aposematic protection and suggest some important directions for empirical work. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry Research

In this paper I argue that the nature of mimetic relationships remains contentious because there are insufficient data to enable full evaluation of theoretical models. There is, however, a growing appreciation of the need to draw together empirical studies to provide foundations for theoretical work. I review some recent data that considers the responses of predators to changing numbers of defended prey items and the nature of mimicry along a palatability spectrum. A simple model of predator behaviour is constructed which combines assumptions from Pavlovian learning studies with traditional ‘number dependent’ learning models. This model has two important properties. First it shows that Pavlovian assumptions can be represented in a simple model which generates interesting predictions. Second it indicates some areas that still need detailed empirical study – most importantly perhaps is the way that predators respond to prey with different levels of edibility. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Relationship between Sympatric Defended Species Depends upon Predators' Discriminatory Behaviour

Toxic prey species living in the same environment have long been thought to mutually benefit from having the same warning signal by sharing the education of naïve predators. In contrast, ‘saturation theory’ predicts that predators are physiologically limited by the amount of toxin that they can eat in a given time period. Therefore, sympatric species that contain the same toxin should mutually benefit from reduced predation even when they are visually distinct, reducing the benefits to visual mimicry. For the first time, we found that mutualism can occur between unequally defended prey that are visually distinct, although the benefits to each prey type depends on the predators'' abilities and/or motivation to visually discriminate between them. Furthermore, we found that this variability in predatory behaviour had a significant impact on the benefits of mimicry for unequally defended prey. Our results demonstrate that variability in the foraging decisions of predators can have a significant effect on the benefits of shared toxicity and visual mimicry between sympatric species, and highlights the need to consider how predators exert selection pressures on models and mimics over their entire lifetimes.     

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.     

Defence Cheats Can Degrade Protection of Chemically Defended Prey

Many species defend themselves against enemies using repellent chemicals. An important but unanswered question is why investment in chemical defence is often variable within prey populations. One explanation is that some prey benefit by cheating, paying no costs of defence, but gaining a reduced attack rate because of the presence of defended conspecifics. Two important assumptions about predator behaviour must be met to explain cheating as a stable strategy: first, predators increase attack rates as cheats increase in frequency; second, defended prey survive attacks better than non‐defended conspecifics. We lack data from wild predators that evaluate these hypotheses. Here, we examine how changes in the frequency of non‐defended ‘cheats’ affect predation by wild birds on a group of otherwise defended prey. We presented mealworm larvae that were either edible (‘cheats’) or unpalatable (bitter tasting), and varied the proportion of cheats from 0 to 1 by increments of 0.25. We found strong frequency‐dependent effects on the birds' foraging behaviour, with the proportion of prey attacked increasing nonlinearly with the frequency of cheats. We did not, however, observe that birds taste‐rejected defended prey at the site of capture. One explanation is that wild birds may not assess prey palatability at the site of capture, but do this elsewhere. If so, defended and undefended prey may pay high costs of initial attack and relocation away from ecologically favourable locations. Alternatively, defended prey may not be taste‐rejected because with acute time constraints, wild birds do not have time to make fine‐grained decisions during feeding. We discuss the data in relation to the evolutionary ecology of prey defences.     

Heterogeneity in predator micro-habitat use and the maintenance of Müllerian mimetic diversity

Müllerian mimicry, where groups of chemically defended species display a common warning color pattern and thereby share the cost of educating predators, is one of the most striking examples of ecological adaptation. Classic models of Müllerian mimicry predict that all unpalatable species of a similar size and form within a community should converge on a single mimetic pattern, but instead communities of unpalatable species often display a remarkable diversity of mimetic patterns (e.g. neotropical ithomiine butterflies). It has been suggested that this apparent paradox may be explained if different suites of predators and species belonging to different mimicry groups utilize different micro-habitats within the community. We developed a stochastic individual-based model for a community of unpalatable mimetic prey species and their predators to evaluate this hypothesis and to examine the effect of predator heterogeneity on prey micro-habitat use. We found that community-level mimetic diversity was higher in simulations with heterogeneous predator micro-habitat use than in simulations with homogeneous predator micro-habitat use. Regardless of the form of predation, mimicry pattern-based assortative mating caused community-level mimetic diversity to persist. Heterogeneity in predator micro-habitat use led to an increased association between mimicry pattern and prey micro-habitat use relative to homogeneous predator micro-habitat use. This increased association was driven, at least in part, by evolutionary convergence of prey micro-habitat use when predators displayed heterogeneous micro-habitat use. These findings provide a theoretical explanation for an important question in evolutionary biology: how is community-level Müllerian mimetic diversity maintained in the face of selection against rare phenotypes?     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prey community structure affects how predators select for Mullerian mimicry

Müllerian mimicry describes the close resemblance between aposematic prey species; it is thought to be beneficial because sharing a warning signal decreases the mortality caused by sampling by inexperienced predators learning to avoid the signal. It has been hypothesized that selection for mimicry is strongest in multi-species prey communities where predators are more prone to misidentify the prey than in simple communities. In this study, wild great tits (Parus major) foraged from either simple (few prey appearances) or complex (several prey appearances) artificial prey communities where a specific model prey was always present. Owing to slower learning, the model did suffer higher mortality in complex communities when the birds were inexperienced. However, in a subsequent generalization test to potential mimics of the model prey (a continuum of signal accuracy), only birds that had foraged from simple communities selected against inaccurate mimics. Therefore, accurate mimicry is more likely to evolve in simple communities even though predator avoidance learning is slower in complex communities. For mimicry to evolve, prey species must have a common predator; the effective community consists of the predator's diet. In diverse environments, the limited diets of specialist predators could create 'simple community pockets' where accurate mimicry is selected for.