The influence of ultraviolet reflectance differs between conspicuous aposematic signals in neotropical butterflies and poison frogs

Warning signals are often characterized by highly contrasting, distinctive, and memorable colors. Greater chromatic (hue) and achromatic (brightness) contrast have both been found to contribute to greater signal efficacy, making longwave colored signals (e.g., red and yellow), that are perceived by both chromatic and achromatic visual pathways, particularly common. Conversely, shortwave colors (e.g., blue and ultraviolet) do not contribute to luminance perception yet are also commonly found in warning signals. Our understanding of the role of UV in aposematic signals is currently incomplete as UV perception is not universal, and evidence for its utility is at best mixed. We used visual modeling to quantify how UV affects signal contrast in aposematic heliconiian butterflies and poison frogs both of which reflect UV wavelengths, occupy similar habitats, and share similar classes of predators. Previous work on butterflies has found that UV reflectance does not affect predation risk but is involved in mate choice. As the butterflies, but not the frogs, have UV‐sensitive vision, the function of UV reflectance in poison frogs is currently unknown. We found that despite showing up strongly in UV photographs, UV reflectance only appreciably affected visual contrast in the butterflies. As such, these results support the notion that although UV reflectance is associated with intraspecific communication in butterflies, it appears to be nonfunctional in frogs. Consequently, our data highlight that we should be careful when assigning a selection‐based benefit to the presence of UV reflectance.     

Female preferences for aposematic signal components in a polymorphic poison frog

Aposematic signals may be subject to conflicting selective pressures from predators and conspecifics. We studied female preferences for different components of aposematic coloration in the polymorphic poison frog Oophaga pumilio across several phenotypically distinct populations. This frog shows striking diversity in color and pattern between geographically isolated populations in western Panama. Results indicate that male dorsal color is the most important determiner of female preferences. We did not find consistent evidence for effects of other signal components, such as spotting pattern or ventral color. Females in two populations showed assortative preferences mediated by male dorsal coloration. In a third population we found incomplete color-assortative preference behavior, with females exhibiting strong discrimination toward one novel color but not another. These results hint at a possible interaction between sexual and natural selection: female tolerance of unfamiliar coloration patterns could facilitate the establishment of novel phenotypes that are favored by other selective pressures (e.g., predator biases). Furthermore, our study suggests that specific components of the aposematic signal (i.e., dorsal color, ventral color, and spotting pattern) are affected differently by natural and sexual selection.     

Benefit by contrast: an experiment with live aposematic prey

Aposematic prey often have a coloration that contrasts withthe background. One beneficial effect of such conspicuous colorationis that it produces faster and more durable avoidance by predators.Another suggested benefit is that prey that contrast with thebackground are more quickly discerned and recognized as unpalatableby experienced predators. To further investigate the effectsof prey contrast on predator behavior, I conducted an experimentwith young chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) as predators onlive aposematic and nonaposematic prey. Birds with prior experienceof both prey types were allowed into an arena with both palatableprey and aposematic prey on backgrounds that either closelymatched or contrasted with the coloration of the aposematicprey. Also, the time a bird had available to decide to attacka prey was manipulated by including a competing chick or not.The experienced birds showed greater attack latencies for aposematicprey on more contrasting backgrounds, and aposematic prey werealso attacked to a greater extent when on a matching background.The presence of a competitor generated similar effects, wherebirds in high competition attacked more and faster comparedto birds subjected to lower degree of competition, but therewas no interaction between competition and contrast. Thus,the experiment provides evidence that prey contrast againstthe background may produce better recognition and avoidance,independently of predator viewing time.     

Ultraviolet plumage does not signal social status in free-living blue tits; an experimental test

Ultraviolet (UV) signals are suggested to be sexually selectedin a wide range of taxa. Most research, however, has focusedon the role of UV signals in mate choice, whereas possible functionsin intraspecific competition remain largely untested. Studieson other colors indicate that ornaments preferred by femalescan also function as signals of social status in competitiveinteractions between individuals. Whereas these colors are mainlypigment based, UV reflectance is generally caused by selectivereflectance of light from surface structures. Here we test experimentallywhether the structurally based UV-reflective crown plumage inthe blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) serves as a signal of statusin interindividual competition. We reduced the crown UV reflectanceof free-living blue tits in winter and compared their probabilityof winning conflicts over food at a feeding table with control-treatedand untreated individuals. Although we controlled for effectsof sex, age, and distance from territory, we found no effectof reduced UV reflectance on the probability of winning norwere conflicts involving UV-reduced individuals more likelyto escalate. Therefore, we conclude that the UV reflectanceof the blue tit's crown does not serve as a signal of statusin competition over food in winter. We suggest that the observedsite-dependent dominance structure may constrain the opportunityfor a status signal to evolve and that enhancing attractivenessin mate choice may be the sole function of the crown's UV reflectance.     

Prey from the eyes of predators: Color discriminability of aposematic and mimetic butterflies from an avian visual perspective

Predation exerts strong selection on mimetic butterfly wing color patterns, which also serve other functions such as sexual selection. Therefore, specific selection pressures may affect the sexes and signal components differentially. We tested three predictions about the evolution of mimetic resemblance by comparing wing coloration of aposematic butterflies and their Batesian mimics: (a) females gain greater mimetic advantage than males and therefore are better mimics, (b) due to intersexual genetic correlations, sexually monomorphic mimics are better mimics than female‐limited mimics, and (c) mimetic resemblance is better on the dorsal wing surface that is visible to predators in flight. Using a physiological model of avian color vision, we quantified mimetic resemblance from predators’ perspective, which showed that female butterflies were better mimics than males. Mimetic resemblance in female‐limited mimics was comparable to that in sexually monomorphic mimics, suggesting that intersexual genetic correlations did not constrain adaptive response to selection for female‐limited mimicry. Mimetic resemblance on the ventral wing surface was better than that on the dorsal wing surface, implying stronger natural and sexual selection on ventral and dorsal surfaces, respectively. These results suggest that mimetic resemblance in butterfly mimicry rings has evolved under various selective pressures acting in a sex‐ and wing surface‐specific manner.