Predators use environmental cues to discriminate between prey
- 186 Downloads
The cognitive processes of predators play a central role in the evolution of prey characters. Numerous studies have shown that vertebrate predators may learn to associate the characteristics of prey (e.g. color) with the cost or benefit of ingesting them, thus forming preferences and aversions for different kinds of prey. Although the distribution and quality of prey types can differ between environmental contexts, which may make it profitable to attack a prey type in some contexts but not in others, the influence of environmental cues in decisions to attack has rarely been addressed. Recent theory suggests that modification of prey preferences by environmental cues such as microhabitat or temperature may influence the evolution of prey characteristics. Here, we show that the environmental foraging context may determine prey choice in great tits (Parus major) through learned association between the prey phenotype (appearance and palatability) and a contextual background cue. The same individuals were able to learn and maintain two different sets of food preferences and aversions for use in two different environmental contexts (aviaries with red or blue wooden boards), indicating a role for contextual learning in vertebrate foraging behavior.
KeywordsPredator psychology Cognitive ecology Contextual learning Associative learning Prey preferences Sex difference
This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway, the Academy of Finland and the Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research at the University of Jyväskylä. We thank M. Koivula and H. Nisu for assistance and Konnevesi Research Station for the experimental facilities. We also thank L. C. Stige for statistical advice and N. Barson, M. Iversen, N. C. Stenseth and S. A. Sæther for comments on an earlier draft of the paper. The experiment complies with the current laws of Finland.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Bowers MD (1992) The evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defense in insects. In: Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect chemical ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 216–244Google Scholar
- Cramp S, Perrins CM (1993) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol 7. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Domjan M (1998) The principles of learning and behavior, 4th edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
- Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gamberale-Stille G, Tullberg BS (2001) Fruit or aposematic insect? Context-dependent colour preferences in domestic chicks. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2525–2529Google Scholar
- Hinde RA (1952) The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and some other related species. Behaviour Suppl 2:1–201Google Scholar
- Jenni L, Winkler R (1994) Moult and ageing of European passerines. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Malcolm SB (1992) Prey defence and predator foraging. In: Crawley MJ (ed) Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 458–475Google Scholar
- Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack. The evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals, and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Thomas DR, Moye TB, Kimose E (1984) The recency effect in pigeons' long-term memory. Anim Learn Behav 12:21–28Google Scholar