Abstract
Aposematism (considered here as an association between conspicuous colour patterns and the presence of a harmful secondary defence) has long been recognized as an anti-predator strategy, with salient traits serving as a warning signal to ward off would-be predators. Here we review evidence for a potentially widespread yet under-explored third component of this defensive syndrome, namely capture tolerance (the ability of the signaller to survive being captured and handled by would-be predators). We begin by collating the (largely anecdotal) available evidence that aposematic species do indeed have more robust bodies than cryptic species which lack harmful secondary defences, and that they are better able to survive being captured. We then present a series of explanations as to why aposematism and capture tolerance may be associated. One explanation is that a high degree of capture tolerance facilitates the evolution of post detection (“secondary”) defences and associated warning signals. However perhaps a more likely scenario is that a high capture tolerance is selected for in defended species, especially if conspicuous, because if they can survive for long enough to reveal their defences then they may be released unharmed. Alternatively, both capture tolerance and secondary defences may arise through independent or joint selection, with both traits subsequently facilitating the evolution of conspicuous warning signals. Whatever its ultimate cause, the three-way association appears widespread and has several key implications, including inhibiting the evolution of automimicry and shaping the evolution of tactile mimicry. Finally, we present a range of research questions and describe the challenges that must be overcome in developing a more critical understanding of the role of capture tolerance in the evolution of anti-predator defences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Aguirre LF, Herrel A, Van Damme R, Matthysen E (2003) The implications of food hardness for diet in bats. Funct Ecol 17:201–212
Aubier TG, Sherratt TN (2015) Diversity in Müllerian mimicry: the optimal predator sampling strategy explains both local and regional polymorphism in prey. Evolution 69:2831–2845. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12790
Blest AD (1963) Relations between moths and predators. Nature 197:1046–1047. https://doi.org/10.1038/1971046a0
Boevé JL, Schaffner U (2003) Why does the larval integument of some sawfly species disrupt so easily? The harmful hemolymph hypothesis. Oecologia 134:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1092-4
Boyden TC (1976) Butterfly palatability and mimicry - experiments with Ameiva lizards. Evolution 30:73–81
Britton N, Planqué R, Franks N (2007) Evolution of defence portfolios in exploiter–victim systems. Bull Math Biol 69:957–988
Brower LP, Glazier SC (1975) Localization of heart poisons in the Monarch butterfly. Science 188:19–25
Caro T (2023) An evolutionary route to warning coloration. Nature 618:34–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01356-8
Carpenter H (1929) Mimicry. Nature 123:661–663
Carroll J, Sherratt TN (2013) A direct comparison of the effectiveness of two anti-predator strategies under field conditions. J Zool 291:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12074
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1986.tb01772.x
Chai P (1996) Butterfly visual characteristics and ontogeny of responses to butterflies by a specialized tropical bird. Biol J Linn Soc 59:37–67
Chouteau M, Dezeure J, Sherratt TN, Llaurens V, Joron M (2019) Similar predator aversion for natural prey with diverse toxicity levels. Anim Behav 153:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.04.017
Corbin CE, Lowenberger LK, Gray BL (2015) Linkage and trade-off in trophic morphology and behavioural performance of birds. Funct Ecol 29:808–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12385
Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen & Co., London
Cyriac VP, Kodandaramaiah U (2019) Don’t waste your time: predators avoid prey with conspicuous colors that signal long handling time. Evol Ecol 33:625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-019-09998-9
DeVries PJ (2002) Differential wing toughness in distasteful and palatable butterflies: direct evidence supports unpalatable theory. Biotropica 34:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1646/0006-3606(2002)034[0176:dwtida]2.0.co;2
DeVries PJ (2003) Tough African models and weak mimics: new horizons in the evolution of bad taste. J Lepidopterists Soc. 57:235–238
Dowdy NJ, Conner WE (2016) Acoustic aposematism and evasive action in select chemically defended Arctiine (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) species: Nonchalant or not? PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152981
Edmunds ME (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Harlow
Endler JA (1991) Interactions between predators and prey. In: Krebs J, Davies N (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 169–202
Engen S, Järvi T, Wiklund C (1986) The evolution of aposematic coloration by individual selection: a life-span survival model. Oikos 46:397–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565840
Evans DL (1987) Tough, harmless cryptics could evolve into tough, nasty aposematics: an individual selectionist model. Oikos 48:114–115
Evans DL, Castoriades N, Badruddine H (1986) Cardenolides in the defense of Caenocoris nerii (Hemiptera). Oikos 46:325–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565830
Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Fisher DO, Dickman CR (1993a) Body size-prey relationships in insectivorous marsupials: tests of three hypotheses. Ecology 74:1871–1883
Fisher DO, Dickman CR (1993b) Diets of insectivorous marsupials in arid Australia: selection for prey type, size or hardness? J Arid Environ 25:397–410. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1993.1072
Freeman PW, Lemen CA (2007) Using scissors to quantify hardness of insects: Do bats select for size or hardness? J Zool 271:469–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00231.x
Gall BG, Spivey KL, Chapman TL, Delph RJ, Brodie ED, Wilson JS (2018) The indestructible insect: Velvet ants from across the United States avoid predation by representatives from all major tetrapod clades. Ecol Evol 8:5852–5862. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4123
Gilbert F (2005) The evolution of imperfect mimicry. In: Fellowes M, Holloway G, Rolff J (eds) Insect evolutionary ecology. CABI, Wallingford, pp 231–288
Guilford T (1994) ‘Go-slow’ signalling and the problem of automimicry. J Theor Biol 170:311–316. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1994.1192
Gullan PJ, Cranston PS (2014) The insects: an outline of entomology. Wiley, New Jersey
Haase E (1896) Researches on mimicry on the basis of a natural classification of the papilionidae: part 2 researches on mimicry. Stuttgart Erwin Nagele
Hatle JD, Faragher SG (1998) Slow movement increases the survivorship of a chemically defended grasshopper in predatory encounters. Oecologia 115:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050515
Herrel A, Damme RV, Vanhooydonck B, Vree FD (2001) The implications of bite performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Can J Zool 79:662–670. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-79-4-662
Hill RI, Vaca JF (2004) Differential wing strength in Pierella butterflies (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) supports the deflection hypothesis. Biotropica 36:362–370. https://doi.org/10.1646/03191
Hogan-Warburg AJ, Hogan JA (1981) Feeding strategies in the development of food recognition in young chicks. Anim Behav 29:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80161-3
Järvi T, Sillentullberg B, Wiklund C (1981) The cost of being aposematic - an experimental-study of predation on larvae of Papilio-machaon by the great tit, Parus major. Oikos 36:267–272
Kassarov L (1999) Are birds able to taste and reject butterflies based on ‘beak mark tasting’? A different point of view. Behaviour 136:965–981
Kassarov L (2004) A critical response to the paper “Tough African models and weak mimics: new horizons in the evolution of bad taste” by P. DeVries published in this journal, Vol 57(3) 2003. J Lepidopterists’ Soc 58:169–172
Kikuchi DW, Allen WL, Arbuckle K, Aubier TG, Briolat ES, Burdfield-Steel ER, Cheney KL, Daňková K, Elias M, Hämäläinen L, Herberstein ME, Hossie TJ, Joron M, Kunte K, Leavell BC, Lindstedt C, Lorioux-Chevalier U, McClure M, McLellan CF, Medina I, Nawge V, Páez E, Pal A, Pekár S, Penacchio O, Raška J, Reader T, Rojas B, Rönkä KH, Rößler DC, Rowe C, Rowland HM, Roy A, Schaal KA, Sherratt TN, Skelhorn J, Smart HR, Stankowich T, Stefan AM, Summers K, Taylor CH, Thorogood R, Umbers K, Winters AE, Yeager J, Exnerová A (2023) The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences. J Evol Biol 36:975–991. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14192
Kuenzel WJ (1989) Neuroanatomical substrates involved in the control of food intake. Poult Sci 68:926–937. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680926
Lederer RJ (1975) Bill size, food size, and jaw forces of insectivorous birds. Auk 92:385–387
Loeffler-Henry K, Kang C, Sherratt TN (2023) Evolutionary transitions from camouflage to aposematism: Hidden signals play a pivotal role. Science 379:1136–1140
Mangel M, Samaniego FJ (1984) Abraham Wald’s work on aircraft survivability. J Am Stat Assoc 79:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478038
Mappes J, Marples N, Endler JA (2005) The complex business of survival by aposematism. Trends Ecol Evol 20:598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.011
Marden JH, Chai P (1991) Aerial predation and butterfly design: how palatability, mimicry, and the need for evasive flight constrain mass allocation. Am Nat 138:15–36
Marples NM, Vanveelen W, Brakefield PM (1994) The relative importance of color, taste and smell in the protection of an aposematic insect Coccinella-septempunctata. Anim Behav 48:967–974. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1322
Matthews RW, Matthews JR (2010) Insect behavior. Springer, New york
Maynard Smith J (1964) Group selection and kin selection. Nature 201:1145–1147. https://doi.org/10.1038/2011145a0
Miller TA, Andersen SO, Chandler HD, Gilby AR, Hackman RH, Hepburn HR, Huie P, Lewis CT, Locke M, Loveridge JP, Oberlander H, Neville AC, Scheie PO (2009) Cuticle techniques in arthropods. Springer-Verlag, New York
Mostler G (1935) Beobachtungen zur frage der wespenmimikry. Z Morphol Oekol Tierre 29:381–454
Ohara Y, Nagasaka K, Ohsaki N (1993) Warning coloration in sawfly Athalia rosae larva and concealing coloration in butterfly Pieris rapae larva feeding on similar plants evolved through individual selection. Popul Ecol 35:223. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02513594
Pasteels JM, Gregoire JC, Rowellrahier M (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 28:263–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.28.010183.001403
Penney HD, Hassall C, Skevington JH, Lamborn B, Sherratt TN (2014) The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Am Nat 183:281–289. https://doi.org/10.1086/674612
Pinheiro C, Campos V (2019) The responses of wild jacamars (Galbula ruficauda, Galbulidae) to aposematic, aposematic and cryptic, and cryptic butterflies in central Brazil. Ecol Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12723
Pinheiro CEG, Campos VC (2013) Do rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) play with aposematic butterflies? Ornitol Neotropical 24:365–367
Poulton EB (1908) The place of mimicry in a scheme of defensive coloration. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 293–382
Poulton EB (1890) The colours of animals: their meaning and use, especially considered in the case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench Trübner, & Co. Ltd., London
Prudic KL, Oliver JC, Sperling FAH (2007) The signal environment is more important than diet or chemical specialization in the evolution of warning coloration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19381–19386. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705478104
Quicke DLJ (2017) Mimicry, crypsis, masquerade and other adaptive resemblances. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey
Remmel T, Tammaru T (2009) Size-dependent predation risk in tree-feeding insects with different colouration strategies: a field experiment. J Anim Ecol 78:973–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01566.x
Rettenmeyer CW (1970) Insect mimicry. Annu Rev Entomol 15:43–74
Rothschild M (1971) Speculations about mimicry with Henry Ford. In: Creed ER (ed) Ecological genetics and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford
Ruxton GD, Allen WL, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2018) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, aposematism, and mimicry, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schmidt JO, Blum MS (1977) Adaptations and responses of Dasymutilla occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) to predators. Entomol Exp Appl 21:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1977.tb02663.x
Schneider ER, Mastrotto M, Laursen WJ, Schulz VP, Goodman JB, Funk OH, Gallagher PG, Gracheva EO, Bagriantsev SN (2014) Neuronal mechanism for acute mechanosensitivity in tactile-foraging waterfowl. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:14941–14946. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413656111
Sherratt TN (2008) The evolution of Müllerian mimicry. Naturwissenschaften 95:681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0403-y
Sherratt TN, Rashed A, Beatty CD (2004) The evolution of locomotory behavior in profitable and unprofitable simulated prey. Oecologia 138:143–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1411-4
Sillén-Tullberg B (1985) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67:411–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384948
Soliman SA, Madkour FA (2017) A comparative analysis of the organization of the sensory units in the beak of duck and quail. Cytol Embryol 1:1–16. https://doi.org/10.15761/HCE.1000122
Speed MP (1993) Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim Behav 45:571–580
Srygley RB (1994) Locomotor mimicry in butterflies - the associations of positions of centers of mass among groups of mimetic, unprofitable prey. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 343:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0017
Steppan SJ (1996) Flexural stiffness patterns of butterfly wings (Papilionoidea). J Res Lepidoptera 35:61–77
Sugiura S (2020) Predators as drivers of insect defenses. Entomol Sci 23:316–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12423
Sun JY, Tong J, Ma YH (2008) Nanomechanical behaviours of cuticle of three kinds of beetle. J Bionic Eng 5:152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(08)60087-6
Swynnerton CFM (1926) An investigation into the defences of butterflies of the genus Charaxes. Int Entom Ologen-Kongreß 2:478–504
Trimen R (1868) On some remarkable memetic analogies among African Butterflies. Trans Linnean Soc Lond 26:497–522
Trimen R, Bowker JH (1887) South-African butterflies. Trübner & Co., Ludgate Hill
Vasconcellos-Neto J, Lewinsohn TM (1984) Discrimination and release of unpalatable butterflies by Nephila clavipes, a neotropical orb-weaving spider. Ecol Entomol 9:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1984.tb00857.x
Wald A (1943) A method of estimating plane vulnerability based on damage of survivors. Statistical Research Group, Columbia University reprint from July 1980 Center for Naval Analyses CRC 432
Wallace AR (1889) Darwinism - An exposition of the theory of natural selection with some of its applications. MacMillan & Co., London
Wang L-Y, Huang W-S, Tang H-C, Huang L-C, Lin C-P (2018a) Too hard to swallow: a secret secondary defence of an aposematic insect. J Exp Biol 221:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.172486
Wang LY, Rajabi H, Ghoroubi N, Lin CP, Gorb SN (2018b) Biomechanical strategies underlying the robust body armour of an aposematic weevil. Front Physiol 9:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01410
White TE, Umbers KDL (2021) Meta-analytic evidence for quantitative honesty in aposematic signals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 288:20210679. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0679
Whitman DW, Blum MS, Jones CG (1985) Chemical defense in Taeniopoda eques (Orthoptera: Acrididae): role of the metathoracic secretion. Ann Entomol Soc Am 78:451–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/78.4.451
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
Williams ML, Sullivan DE, Renninger GH, McFarland EI, Hunt JL (2012) Physics for the biological sciences. Nelson Education Ltd, Toronto
Winters AE, Lommi J, Kirvesoja J, Nokelainen O, Mappes J (2021) Multimodal aposematic defenses through the predation sequence. Front Ecol Evol 9:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.657740
Wourms MK, Wasserman FE (1985) Butterfly wing markings are more advantageous during handling than during the initial strike of an avian predator. Evolution 39:845–851. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408684
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 131:332–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blaa119
Young AM (1971) Wing coloration and reflectance in Morpho butterflies as related to reproductive behavior and escape from avian predators. Oecologia 7:209–222
Acknowledgements
We thank Jeff Dawson, Graeme Ruxton, Jayne Yack our AE (Tom Reader) and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on our paper.
Funding
T.N.S. is supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC).
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors are not aware of any financial or competing interests that may have influenced this review.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sherratt, T.N., Stefan, A. Capture tolerance: A neglected third component of aposematism?. Evol Ecol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-024-10289-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-024-10289-1