Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 751–761 | Cite as

Context-dependent misclassification of masquerading prey

Original Paper

Abstract

Masquerading prey resemble inedible objects such as leaves, twigs, stones and bird-droppings; and benefit because their predators misclassify them as the objects that they appear to resemble. From previous work on the importance of context cues in animal learning, we predict that predators will be less likely to misclassify masquerading prey as their models when they are found in a context in which predators have never before experienced the model. Here, we test this prediction using domestic chicks Gallus gallus domesticus as predators and twig-mimicking larvae of the Early Thorn moth Selenia dentaria as masquerading prey. We found that the benefit of masquerade was significantly larger when the twig-mimicking caterpillar was found in the context in which birds had previously experienced twigs. This suggests that masqueraders may have to pay opportunity costs associated with matching their models in position and microhabitat; and that predators’ classification decisions are complex and multi-factorial.

Keywords

Masquerade Crypsis Camouflage Predation Predator-prey Caterpillar 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank NERC for funding; and John Delf, Hannah Rowland and Mike Speed for considerable help and advice throughout the project. We thank three anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments.

References

  1. Allen JA, Cooper JM (1985) Crypsis and masquerade. J Bio Edu 19:268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 34–55Google Scholar
  3. Carrick R (1936) Experiments to test the efficiency of protective adaptations in insects. Trans R Entomol Soc Lond 85:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1981) Comments on the nature of deception. Biol J Linn Soc 16:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cott HB (1940) Adaptive colouration in animals. Methuen, London, pp 311–343Google Scholar
  6. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Windsor AMM, Walker HJ (2005) Disruptive coloration and background matching. Nature 434:72–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Ruiter L (1952) Some experiments on the camouflage of stick caterpillars. Behaviour 4:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dockery M, Meneely J, Costen P (2009) Avoiding detection by predators: the tactics used by Biston betularia larvae. British J Entomol Nat Hist 22:247–253Google Scholar
  9. Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  10. Edmunds M (1981) On defining ‘mimicry’. Biol J Linn Soc 16:9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endler JA (1981) An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Bio J Linn Soc 16:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gluck MA, Mercado E, Myers CA (2008) Learning and memory: from brain to behaviour. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hailman JP (1977) Optical signals: animal communication and light. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 174–176Google Scholar
  14. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Merilaita S, Lind J (2006) Great tits searching for artificial prey: implications for cryptic coloration and symmetry. Behav Ecol 17:84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson MH (1981) A stick is a stick and not worth eating: on the definition of mimicry. Bio J Linn Soc 16:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothschild M (1981) The mimicrats must move with the times. Bio J Linn Soc 16:21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rowland HM, Cuthill IC, Harvey IF, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2008) Can’t tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2539–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruxton GD, Speed MP, Kelly DJ (2004a) What, if anything, is the adaptive function of countershading? Anim Behav 68:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004b) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Schaefer HM, Stobbe N (2006) Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2427–2432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution and behaviour, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Skelhorn J, Ruxton GD (2010) Predators are less likely to misclassify masquerading prey when their models are present. Biol Lett (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Ruxton GD (2010a) The evolution and ecology of masquerade. Bio J Linn Soc 99:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2010b) Masquerade: camouflage without crypsis. Science 327:51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skow CD, Jakob EM (2006) Jumping spiders attend to context during learned avoidance of aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 17:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stevens M, Meriliata S (2009) Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:423–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stevens M, Cuthill IC, Winsor AMM, Waker HJ (2006) Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2433–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tinbergen L (1960) The natural control of insects in pinewoods. 1. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by a song bird. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 13:265–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vane-Wright RI (1980) On the definition of mimicry. Biol J Linn Soc 13:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vane-Wright RI (1981) Only connect. Bio J Linn Soc 16:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Division of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, College of Life & Environmental SciencesUniversity of Exeter, Washington Singer LaboratoriesExeterUK

Personalised recommendations