Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 482–491

Does colour matter? The importance of colour in avoidance learning, memorability and generalisation

  • A. D. Ham
  • E. Ihalainen
  • L. Lindström
  • J. Mappes
Original Article

Abstract

Aposematic species exploit the ability of predators to associate, for example, conspicuous colouration with the unprofitability of prey. We tested the importance of colour for avoidance learning, memory and generalisation in wild-caught great tits (Parus major). First, we determined the birds’ initial colour preferences for red, yellow, orange and grey artificial prey items. The birds showed some preferences, as they were more willing to eat grey prey as their first choice, but these were not strong preferences. We then trained birds to discriminate red, yellow or variable (red and yellow) signals from grey where colours signalled palatable and unpalatable food. In general, the birds learned the discrimination task equally well, irrespective of which colours signalled unpalatability, and subsequently remembered the distinction between previously palatable and previously unpalatable colours in the memorability test. We did not find strong evidence that variability in the signal affected learning or memory. Our results suggest that, in a task where birds must discriminate between palatable and unpalatable prey, it does not matter which specific colour signals unpalatability, although this might be context-dependent. To study whether training also affects responses to unconditioned stimuli, we included orange prey items in the memorability test. Although orange had been palatable in the initial preference test, the birds ate fewer orange prey items after they had been trained to avoid red, yellow or both colours (variable signal) as unpalatable prey, but did not change their preference when trained that these colourful signals were palatable. This indicates that generalisation occurred more readily after a negative experience than a positive experience, a situation that would potentially allow imperfect mimicry to occur.

Keywords

Aposematism Avoidance learning Colour preference Parus major Predator psychology 

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Mappes J (1996) Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature 382:708–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates HW (1862) Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley (Lepidoptera:Heliconidae). Trans Linn Soc Lond XXIII:495–556Google Scholar
  3. Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurley TA (2003) Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1271–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty CD, Beirinckx K, Sherratt TN (2004) The evolution of Müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities. Nature 431:63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Menthuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Duncan CJ, Sheppard PM (1965) Sensory discrimination and its role in the evolution of Batesian mimicry. Behaviour 24:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans DL, Waldbauer GP (1982) Behavior of adult and naive birds when presented with a bumblebee and its mimic. Zeit fur Tierpsychol 59:247–259Google Scholar
  8. Exnerová A, Landová E, Štys P, Fuchus R, Prokopá M, Cehláriková P (2003) Reactions of passerine birds to aposematic and non-aposematic firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus; Heteroptera). Biol J Linn Soc 78:517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher RA (1930) Genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Gagliardo A, Guilford T (1993) Why do warningly-coloured prey live gregariously? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 251:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gamberale-Stille G (2001) Benefit by contrast: an experiment with live aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 12:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamberale-Stille G, Guilford T (2003) Contrast versus colour in aposematic signals. Anim Behav 65:1021–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gamberale-Stille G, Tullberg BS (1999) Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live aposematic prey. Evol Ecol 13:579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamberale-Stille G, Tullberg BS (2001) Fruit or aposematic insect? Context-dependent colour preferences in domestic chicks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:2525–2529Google Scholar
  15. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH (1980) Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature 286:149–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodale MA, Sneddon I (1977) The effect of distastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial Batesian mimicry. Anim Behav 25:660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guilford T (1986) How do ‘warning colours’ work? Conspicuousness may reduce recognition errors in experienced predators. Anim Behav 34:286–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ham AD (2003) Preferences, learning and memory of colours and patterns in birds: the evolution and design of aposematic signals. Ph.D. Thesis, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  19. Jansson L, Enquist M (2003) Receiver bias for colourful signals. Anim Behav 66:965–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones CD, Osorio D, Baddeley RJ (2001) Colour categorization by domestic chicks. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:2077–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J (1997) Imperfect Batesian mimicry — the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264:149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J (1999a) Reactions of hand-reared and wild caught predators towards warningly colored, gregarious and conspicuous prey. Behav Ecol 10:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Riipi M, Vertainen L (1999b) Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397:249–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyytinen A, Alatalo RV, Lindström L, Mappes J (2001) Can ultraviolet cues function as aposematic signals? Behav Ecol 12:65–70Google Scholar
  25. Mappes J, Alatalo RV (1997) Effects of novelty and gregariousness in survival of aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 8:174–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marples NM, Roper TJ, Harper DGC (1998) Responses of wild birds to novel prey: evidence of dietary conservatism. Oikos 83:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mastrota FN, Mench JA (1995) Colour avoidance in northern bobwhites: effects of age, sex and previous experience. Anim Behav 50:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osorio D, Jones CD, Vorobyev M (1999a) Accurate memory for colour but not pattern contrast in chicks. Curr Biol 9:199–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Osorio D, Vorobyev M, Jones CD (1999b) Colour vision of domestic chicks. J Exp Biol 202:2951–2959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Poulton EB (1890) The colours of animals. Their meaning and use. Especially considered in the case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Riipi M, Alatalo RV, Lindström L, Mappes J (2001) Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature 413:512–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roper TJ (1990) Responses of domestic chicks to artificially coloured insect prey: effects of previous experience and background colour. Anim Behav 39:466–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roper TJ (1994) Conspicuousness of prey retards reversal of learned avoidance. Oikos 69:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roper TJ, Redston S (1987) Conspicuousness of distasteful prey affects the strength and durability of one-trial avoidance learning. Anim Behav 35:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roper TJ, Wistow R (1986) Aposematic coloration and avoidance learning in chicks. Q J Exp Psychol B 38:141–149Google Scholar
  36. Rowe C, Guilford T (1996) Hidden colour aversions in domestic chicks triggered by pyrazine odours of insect warning displays. Nature 383:520–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowe C, Lindström L, Lyytinen A (2004) The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Royama T (1970) Factors governing the hunting behaviour and selection of food by the great tit (Parus major L.). J Anim Ecol 39:619–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlenoff DH (1984) Novelty: a basis for generalization in prey selection. Anim Behav 32:919–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt V, Schaefer HM (2004) Unlearned preference for red may facilitate recognition of palatable food in young omnivorous birds. Evol Ecol Res 6:919–925Google Scholar
  41. Schuler W, Hesse E (1985) On the function of warning coloration: a black and yellow pattern inhibits prey-attack by naive domestic chicks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schuler W, Roper TJ (1992) Responses to warning coloration in avian predators. Adv Stud Behav 21:111–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherratt TN, Beatty CD (2003) The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defence. Am Nat 162:377–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sillén-Tullberg B (1985a) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sillén-Tullberg B (1985b) The significance of coloration per se, independent of background, for predator avoidance of aposematic prey. Anim Behav 33:1382–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith SM (1975) Innate recognition of coral snake pattern by a possible avian predator. Science 187:759–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith SM (1977) Coral-snake pattern recognition and stimulus generalisation by naive great kiskadees (Aves: Tyrannidae). Nature 265:535–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Speed MP (2000) Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory. Anim Behav 60:269–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas RJ, Marples NM, Cuthill IC, Takahashi M, Gibson EA (2003) Dietary conservatism may facilitate the initial evolution of aposematism. Oikos 101:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Haartman L, Hildén O, Linkola P, Suomalainen P, Tenovuo R (eds) (1967) Pohjolan linnut värikuvin II. Otava, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  51. Wallace AR (1867) Untitled. T Entomol Soc Lond y 1864–1869 and March. III:lxxx–lxxxiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. D. Ham
    • 1
  • E. Ihalainen
    • 2
  • L. Lindström
    • 2
  • J. Mappes
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life Sciences, John Maynard Smith BuildingUniversity of Sussex, FalmerBrightonUK
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations