Abstract
Birds are important predators of insects and insects often incorporate chemical defenses that may make themselves distasteful or toxic to the predators. Predators can respond to chemically defended prey in multiple ways, the predator psychology approach to predation often treats predation as a general process despite the possibility for multiple responses among species. The effectiveness of a prey’s chemical defense at reducing predation might also vary depending on what predator is attacking the prey. Here, we compared the attack strategies of three different species of avian predators (Japanese bush warblers [Horornis diphone], narcissus flycatchers [Ficedula narcissina], and Japanese tits [Parus minor]) which are found in the temperate forests of Japan. We found overall, that undefended prey was preferred over the defended prey, but the different predator species had different preferences and handled prey differently from one another. This suggests that different predator species might exert different selection pressures on chemically defended prey and this adds to our growing appreciation that predator behavior can vary among predator species. Moreover, our findings emphasize the importance of understanding differences in behavior among free-living predator species in studies of aposematism and mimicry.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamová-Ježová D, Hospodková E, Fuchsová L, Štys P, Exnerová A (2016) Through experience to boldness? Deactivation of neophobia towards novel and aposematic prey in three European species of tits (Paridae). Behav Proc 131:24–31
Barnett CA, Bateson M, Rowe C (2007) State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade-off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 18:645–651
Barnett CA, Skelhorn J, Bateson M, Rowe C (2012) Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content. Behav Ecol 23:418–424
Barnett CA, Bateson M, Rowe C (2014) Better the devil you know: avian predators find variayion in prey toxicity aversive. Biol Lett 10:20140533
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H (2018) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-19. https://CRAN.R-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2018
Benjamini Y, Hochberg T (1995) Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 5:289–300
Berenbaum MR, Feeny PP (2008) Chemical mediation of host-plant specialization: the Papilionid paradigm. In: Tilmon KJ (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 3–19
Boyden TC (1976) Butterfly palatability and mimicry: experiments with Ameiva lizards. Evolution 30:73–81
Buskirk WH, Powell GVN, Wittenberger JF, Buskirk RE, Powell TU (1972) Interspecific bird flocks in tropical highland Panama. Auk 89:612–624
Carroll J, Sherratt TN (2013) A direct comparison of the effectiveness of two anti-predator strategies under field conditions. J Zool 291:279–285
Chai P (1986) Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) to free-flying butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biol J Linn Soc 29:161–189
Chatelain M, Halpin CG, Rowe C (2013) Ambient temperature influences birds’ decisions to eat toxic prey. Anim Behav 86:733–740
Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Maddocks T, Párraga CA, Troscianko TS (2005) Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 434:72–74
Dell’aglio DD, Stevens M, Jiggins CD (2016) Avoidance of an aposematically coloured butterfly by wild birds in a tropical forest. Ecol Entomol 41:627–631
Exnerová A, Landová E, Štys P, Fuchs R, Prokopová M, Cehláriková P (2003) Reactions of passerine birds to aposematic firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus; Hemiptera). Biol J Linn Soc 78:517–525
Exnerová A, Štys P, Fučíková E, Vesalá S, Svádová K, Prokopová M, Jarošík V, Fuchs R, Landová E (2007) Avoidance of aposematic prey in European tits (Paridae): learned or innate? Behav Ecol 18:148–156
Gamberale-Stille G, Guilford T (2004) Automimicry destabilises aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may prove a solution. Proc R Soc B 271:2612–2625
Halpin CG, Rowe C (2017) The effect of distastefulness and conspicuous coloration on the post-attack rejection behaviour of predators and survival of prey. Biol J Linn Soc 120:236–244
Halpin CG, Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2008) Being conspicuous and defended: selective benefits for the individual. Behav Ecol 19:1012–1017
Hämäläinen L, Mappes J, Thorogood R, Valkonen JK, Karttunen K, Salmi T, Rowland HM (2019) Predators’ consumption of unpalatable prey does not vary as a function of bitter taste perception. Behav Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz199
Holen ØH (2013) Disentangling taste and toxicity in aposematic prey. Proc R Soc B 280:20122588
Järvi T, Sillén-Tullberg B, Wiklund C (1981) The cost of being aposematic: an experimental study of predation on larvae of Papillion machon by the great tit, Parus major. Oikos 36:267–272
Kang C, Cho H-J, Lee S-I, Jablonski PG (2016) Post-attack aposematic display in prey facilitates predator avoidance learning. Front Ecol Evol 4:35
Karr JR (1977) Ecological correlates of rarity in a tropical forest bird community. Auk 94:240–247
Lövei GL, Ferrante M (2017) A review of the sentinel prey method as a way of quantifying invertebrate predation under field conditions. Insect Sci 24:528–542
Marples NM, Brakefield PM, Cowie RJ (1989) Differences between the 7-spot and 2-spot ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) in their toxic effects on a bird predator. Ecol Entomol 14:79–84
Marples NM, Speed MJ, Thomas RJ (2018) An individual-based profitability spectrum for understanding interactions between predators and their prey. Biol J Linn Soc 125:1–13
Nishida R (2002) Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Ann Rev Entomol 47:57–92
Nokelainen O, Valkonen J, Lindstedt C, Mappes J (2014) Changes in predator community structure shifts the efficacy of two warning signals in Arctiid moths. J Anim Ecol 83:598–605
Pagani-Nuñéz E, Barnett CA, Gu H, Goodale E (2016) The need for new categorizations of dietary specialism incorporating spatio-temporal variability of individual diet specialization. J Zool 300:1–7
Päckert M, Martens J, Eck S, Nazarenko AA, Valchuk OP, Petri B, Veith M (2005) The great tit (Parus major)—a misclassified ring species. Biol J Linn Soc 86:153–174
Pinheiro CEG, Campos VC (2019) The responses of wild jacamars (Galbula ruficauda, Galbulidae) to aposematic, aposematic and cryptic, and cryptic butterflies in central Brazil. Ecol Entomol 44:441–450
Pinheiro CEG, de Campos VC (2013) Do rufous tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) play with aposematic butterflies. Ornitolog Neotrop 24:365–367
R Development Core Team [online] (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.Rproject.org. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
Rönkä K, Mappes J, Michalis C, Kiviö R, Salokannas J, Rojas B (2018) Can multiple model mimicry explain warning signal polymorphism in the wood tiger moth, Arctia plantaginis (Lepidoptera: Erebidae)? Biol J Linn Soc 124:237–260
Roper TJ, Wistow R (1986) Aposematic colouration and avoidance learning in chicks. Quart J Exp Psychol B Comp Physiol Psychol 38:141–149
Roslin T, Hardwick B, Novotny V, Petry WK, Andrew NR, Asmus A, Barrio IC, Basset Y, Boesing AL, Bonebrake TC, Cameron EK, Dáttilo W, Donoso DA, Drozd P, Gray DS, Hill SJ, Hopkins T, Huang S, Koane B, Laird-Hopkins B, Laukkanen L, Lewis OT, Milne S, Mwesige I, Nakamura A, Nell CS, Nichols E, Prokurat A, Sam K, Schmidt NM, Slade A, Slade V, Suchanková A, Tedar T, van Nouhuys S, Vandvik V, Weissflog A, Zhikovich V, Slade EM (2017) Higher predation risk for insect prey at low lattitudes and elevations. Science 356:742–744
Ruxton GD, Allen W, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2018) Avoiding attack: the evolution of crypsis, warning signals, and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Seymoure BM, Raymondo A, McGraw KJ, McMillan WO, Rutowski RL (2018) Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies. Curr Zool 64:663–669
Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2006a) Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence. Biol Lett 2:348–350
Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2006b) Predator avoidance learning of prey with secreted or stored defences and the evolution of insect defence. Anim Behav 72:827–834
Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2007) Predators’ toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Curr Biol 17:1479–1483
Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2009) Distastefulness as an antipredator defence strategy. Anim Behav 78:761–766
Skelhorn J, Halpin CG, Rowe C (2016) Learning about aposematism. Behav Ecol 27:955–964
Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Therneau TM (2018) A package for survival analysis in S. version 2.43-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Tsujimoto D, Lin C-H, Kurihara N, Barnett CRA (2019) Citizen science in the class-room: the consistency of student collected data and its value in ecological hypothesis testing. Ornithol Sci 18:39–47
Valkonnen JK, Nokelainen O, Niskanen M, Kilpimaa J, Björkland M, Mappes J (2011) Variation in predator species abundance can cause variable selection pressure on warning signalling prey. Ecol Evol 2:1971–1976
Vesely P, Ernestová B, Nedvéd O, Fuchs R (2017) Do predator energy demands or previous exposure influence protection by aposematic coloration of prey? Curr Zool 63:259–267
Wiklund C, Järvi T (1982) Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naive birds: a reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36:998–1002
Yamazaki Y, Pagani-Núñez E, Sota T, Barnett CRA (2020) The truth is in the detail: predators attack aposematic prey with less aggression than other prey types. Biol J Linn Soc (in press)
Acknowledgements
CRAB thanks Tomoki Kurihara for valuable statistical advice and discussions. We thank two anonymous reviewers who made many valuable comments. We also thank Kyoto University and Kyoto City Council for permission to use the field sites. All research adhered to the ABS/ASAB regulations for the use of animals in research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Barnett, C.R.A., Ringhofer, M. & Suzuki, T.N. Differences in predatory behavior among three bird species when attacking chemically defended and undefended prey. J Ethol 39, 29–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-020-00668-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-020-00668-w