Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 491–501 | Cite as

Identifying the ecological conditions that select for intermediate levels of aposematic signalling

Original Paper

Abstract

Chemically defended species often have conspicuous signals that warn potential predators of these defences. Recent evidence suggests that some such aposematic prey are not as conspicuous as possible, even though increased conspicuousness would bring additional anti-predator benefits. Here we present a simple model to explore the generality of these observations. Our model predicts that optimal fitness will often be achieved at an intermediate level of conspicuousness and not simply by maximising conspicuousness. This comes about because of the ubiquitous trade-off that increased conspicuousness has an ecological cost in increasing the encounter rate with predators, as well as a benefit in terms of enhancing learned aversion by predators of defended prey. However, importantly, we also predict that a small deviation away from maximal crypsis generally causes a decrease in fitness, even if a larger deviation would lead to an intermediate level of conspicuousness that maximises fitness. Hence, further consideration of whether intermediate levels of aposematism are as common in nature as predicted in this model will require consideration of the underlying evolution of appearance, and the plausibility of evolution across the fitness trough, from maximal crypsis to an intermediate level of aposematism.

Keywords

Aposematism Conspicuousness Optimisation Predation Signalling and communication 

References

  1. Chiari Y, Vences M, Vieites DR, Rabemananjara F, Bora P, Ravoahangimalala OR, Meyer A (2004) New evidence for parallel evolution of colour patterns in Malagasy poison frogs (Mantella). Mol Ecol 13:3763–3774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Darst CR, Cummings ME, Cannatella DC (2006) A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:5852–5857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Endler JA, Mappes J (2004) Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Am Nat 163:532–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Engen S, Järvi T, Wiklund C (1986) The evolution of aposematic coloration by individual selection–a life-span survival model. Oikos 46:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gamberale-Stille G (2000) Decision time and prey gregariousness influence attack probability in naive and experienced predators. Anim Behav 60:95–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gamberale-Stille G (2001) Benefit by contrast: an experiment with live aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 12:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gamberale G, Tullberg BS (1996) Evidence for a more effective signal in aggregated aposematic prey. Anim Behav 52:597–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gamberale G, Tullberg BS (1998) Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 265:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH (1980) Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature 28:897–899Google Scholar
  10. Guilford T (1992) Predator psychology and the evolution of prey coloration. In: Crawley MJ (ed) Natural enermies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagman M, Forsman A (2003) Correlated evolution of conspicuous coloration and body size in poison frogs (dendrobatidae). Evolution 57:2904–2910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly DJ, Marples NM (2004) The effects of novel odour and colour cues on food acceptance by the zebra finch, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 68:1049–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leimar O, Enquist M, Sillén-Tullberg B (1986) Evolutionary stability of aposematic coloration and prey unprofitability–a theoretical-analysis. Am Nat 128:469–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Riipi M, Vertainen L (1999) Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397:249–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mallet J, Singer MC (1987) Individual selection, kin selection, and the shifting balance in the evolution of warning colors–the evidence from butterflies. Biol J Linnean Soc 32:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merilaita S, Tullberg BS (2005) Constrained camouflage facilitates the evolution of conspicuous warning coloration. Evolution 59:38–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ohsaki N (2005) A common mechanism explaining the evolution of female-limited and both-sex Batesian mimicry in butterflies. J Anim Ecol 74:728–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Santos JC, Coloma LA, Cannatella DC (2003) Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:12792–12797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schuler W, Roper TJ (1992) Responses to warning coloration in avian predators. Adv Stud Behav 21:111–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sillén-Tullberg B (1985) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2006a) Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence. Biol Lett 2:348–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2006b) Taste-rejection by predators and the evolution of unpalatability in prey. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Speed MP (2000) Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory. Anim Behav 60:269–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2007) How Nasty and how bright: explaining diversity in warning signal strength. Evolution 61:623–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Summers K, Clough ME (2001) The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6227–6232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tullberg BS Merilaita S, Wiklund C (2005) Aposematism and crypsis combined as a result of distance dependence: functional versatility of the colour pattern in the swallowtail butterfly larva. In: Proceedings of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272:1315–1321Google Scholar
  30. Vences M, Kosuch J, Boistel R, Haddad CFB, La Marca E, Lotters S, Veith M (2003) Convergent evolution of aposematic coloration in Neotropical poison frogs: a molecular phylogenetic perspective. Org Divers Evol 3:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallace AR (1867) Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London March 4th: IXXX-IXXXiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Environmental & Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Graham Kerr BuildingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.Centre for Statistics and Stochastic Modelling, Department of MathematicsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations