Michael P. Speed

Masquerade: Camouflage without crypsis

Caterpillars masquerading as twigs are misidentified by chick predators as inanimate objects, rather than remaining undetected. Masquerade describes the resemblance of an organism to an inedible object and is hypothesized to facilitate misidentification of that organism by its predators or its prey. To date, there has been no empirical demonstration of the benefits of masquerade. Here, we show that two species of caterpillar obtain protection from an avian predator by being misidentified as twigs. By manipulating predators’ previous experience of the putative model but keeping their exposure to the masquerader the same, we determined that predators misidentify masquerading prey as their models, rather than simply failing to detect them.

Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences

In the first clear mathematical treatment of natural selection, Müller proposed that a shared warning signal (mimicry) would benefit defended prey species by sharing out the per capita mortality incurred during predator education. Although mimicry is a mainstay of adaptationist thinking, there has been repeated debate on whether there is a mutualistic or a parasitic relationship between unequally defended co-mimic species. Here we show that the relationship between unequally defended species is mutualistic. We examined this in a ‘novel world’ of artificial prey with wild predators (great tit, Parus major). We kept the abundance of a highly defended prey (‘model’) constant and increased the density of a moderately defended prey (‘defended mimic’) of either perfect or imperfect mimetic resemblance to the model. Both model and defended mimic showed a net benefit from a density-dependent decrease in their per capita mortality. Even when the effect of dilution through density was controlled for, defended mimics did not induce additional attacks on the model, but we found selection for accurate signal mimicry. In comparison, the addition of fully edible (batesian) mimics did increase additional attacks on the model, but as a result of dilution this resulted in no overall increase in per capita mortality. By ignoring the effects of density, current theories may have overestimated the parasitic costs imposed by less defended mimics on highly defended models.

Can't tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland

Perception of the bodys outline and three-dimensional shape arises from visual cues such as shading, contour, perspective and texture. When a uniformly coloured prey animal is illuminated from above by sunlight, a shadow may be cast on the body, generating a brightness contrast between the dorsal and ventral surfaces. For animals such as caterpillars, which live among flat leaves, a difference in reflectance over the body surface may degrade the degree of background matching and provide cues to shape from shading. This may make otherwise cryptic prey more conspicuous to visually hunting predators. Cryptically coloured prey are expected to match their substrate in colour, pattern and texture (though disruptive patterning is an exception), but they may also abolish self-shadowing and therefore either reduce shape cues or maintain their degree of background matching through countershading: a gradation of pigment on the body of an animal so that the surface closest to illumination is darker. In this study, we report the results from a series of field experiments where artificial prey resembling lepidopteran larvae were presented on the upper surfaces of beech tree branches so that they could be viewed by free-living birds. We demonstrate that countershading is superior to uniform coloration in terms of reducing attack by free-living predators. This result persisted even when we fixed prey to the underside of branches, simulating the resting position of many tree-living caterpillars. Our experiments provide the first demonstration, in an ecologically valid visual context, that shadowing on bodies (such as lepidopteran larvae) provides cues that visually hunting predators use to detect potential prey species, and that countershading counterbalances shadowing to enhance cryptic protection.

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.

Warning displays may function as honest signals of toxicity

Many prey species use colourful ‘aposematic’ signalling to advertise the fact that they are toxic. Some recent studies have shown that the brightness of aposematic displays correlates positively with the strength of toxicity, suggesting that aposematic displays are a form of handicap signal, the conspicuousness of which reliably indicates the level of toxicity. The theoretical consensus in the literature is, however, at odds with this finding. It is commonly assumed that the most toxic prey should have less bright advertisements because they have better chances of surviving attacks and can therefore reduce the costs incurred by signalling. Using a novel theoretical model, we show that aposematic signals can indeed function as handicaps. To generate this prediction, we make a key assumption that the expression of bright displays and the storage of anti-predator toxins compete for resources within prey individuals. One shared currency is energy. However, competition for antioxidant molecules, which serve dual roles as pigments and in protecting prey against oxidative stress when they accumulate toxins, provides a specific candidate resource that could explain signal honesty. Thus, contrary to the prevailing theoretical orthodoxy, warning displays may in fact be honest signals of the level of (rather than simply the existence of) toxicity.

HOW BRIGHT AND HOW NASTY: EXPLAINING DIVERSITY IN WARNING SIGNAL STRENGTH

Abstract The conspicuous displays that warn predators of defenses carried by potential prey have been of interest to evolutionary biologists from the time of Wallace and Darwin to the present day. Although most studies implicitly assume that these “aposematic” warning signals simply indicate the presence of some repellent defense such as a toxin, it has been speculated that the intensity of the signal might reliably indicate the strength of defense so that, for example, the nastiest prey might “shout loudest” about their unprofitability. Recent phylogenetic and empirical studies of Dendrobatid frogs provide contradictory views, in one instance showing a positive correlation between toxin levels and conspicuousness, in another showing a breakdown of this relationship. In this paper we present an optimization model, which can potentially account for these divergent results. Our model locates the optimal values of defensive traits that are influenced by a range of costs and benefits. We show that optimal aposematic conspicuousness can be positively correlated with optimal prey toxicity, especially where population sizes and season lengths vary between species. In other cases, optimal aposematic conspicuousness may be negatively correlated with toxicity; this is especially the case when the marginal costs of aposematic displays vary between members of different populations. Finally, when displays incur no allocation costs there may be no single optimum value for aposematic conspicuousness, rather a large array of alternative forms of a display may have equal fitness.

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.

WARNING DISPLAYS IN SPINY ANIMALS: ONE (MORE) EVOLUTIONARY ROUTE TO APOSEMATISM

Abstract 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.

Aposematism: what should our starting point be?

The evolution of aposematism is considered to be a major evolutionary problem because if new aposematic forms emerged in defended cryptic populations, they would face the dual problems of rarity and conspicuousness. We argue that this commonly assumed starting point might not have wide validity. We describe a novel evolutionary computer model in which prey evolve secondary defences and become conspicuous by moving widely over a visually heterogeneous habitat. Unless crypsis imposes high opportunity costs (for instance, preventing prey from efficient foraging, thermoregulation and communication), costly secondary defences are not predicted to evolve at all. However, when crypsis imposes opportunity costs, prey evolve secondary defences that facilitate raised behavioural conspicuousness as prey exploit opportunities within their environment. Optimal levels of secondary defence and of behavioural conspicuousness increase with population sizes and the costs imposed by crypsis. When prey are already conspicuous by virtue of their behaviours, the evolution of aposematic appearances (bright coloration, etc.) is much easier to explain because aposematic traits add little further costs of conspicuousness, but can bring large benefits.

Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds

Experiments with wild birds feeding on pastry ‘prey’ were performed to test competing theories of Müllerian mimicry. Conventional theories predict that all resemblances between defended prey will be mutually advantageous and, hence, Mullerian. In contrast, unconventional theories predict that, if there are inequalities in defences between mimetic species, the less well–defended prey may dilute the protection of the better defended species in a quasi–Batesian manner.This unconventional prediction follows from an assumption that birds learn about the edibilities of prey using rules of Pavlovian learning.We report on two experiments, each lasting 40 days, which showed that a moderately defended prey can dilute the protection of a better defended mimic in a quasi–Batesian fashion, but can add protection to a mimic which has the same moderate levels of defence. These results match predictions of unconventional theories of mimicry and go some way to resolving the long–running arguments over the nature of Mullerian mimicry.