Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 550–555 | Cite as

Taste-rejection by predators and the evolution of unpalatability in prey

Original Article


Aposematic species advertise their unpalatability to potential predators using conspicuous warning colouration. The initial evolution of aposematism is thought to occur by warningly coloured mutants emerging in an already unpalatable cryptic species. However, possessing defence chemicals is often costly, and it is difficult to understand what the selective benefits might be for a mutation causing its bearer to be defended in a population of otherwise palatable cryptic prey. One solution to this problem is that chemically defended individuals are tasted and rejected by predators, and are, therefore, more likely to survive predatory attacks than undefended individuals. Using naïve domestic chicks Gallus gallus domesticus as predators and cryptic green chick crumbs as prey, we asked whether the accuracy with which birds discriminated between palatable and unpalatable prey was affected by the palatability of the unpalatable prey (moderately or highly defended), or their frequency in the population (10 or 25%). Birds could discriminate between green prey on the basis of their defences, and showed better discrimination between palatable and unpalatable prey when defended crumbs were highly unpalatable, compared to when they were moderately unpalatable. Although there was no detectable effect of the frequency of unpalatable prey in the population on predator taste-rejection behaviour in our main analysis, frequency did appear to affect the strategies that birds used in their foraging decisions when prey were only moderately unpalatable. How birds used taste to reject prey also suggests that birds may be able to monitor and regulate their chemical intake according to the frequency and defence levels of the unpalatable prey. Taken together, these results show that avian predators can generate selection for unpalatability in cryptic prey by sampling and taste-rejecting prey, but that a relatively large chemical difference between palatable and unpalatable prey may be necessary before unpalatable prey can enjoy a selective advantage. The exact nature of this evolutionary dynamic will depend on other environmental factors, such as defence costs and prey availability, but it provides a mechanism by which defences can evolve in a cryptic population.


Toxicity Perception Domestic chick Individual selection Receiver psychology 


  1. Berenbaum M (1981) Effects of linear furanocoumarins on an adapted specialist insect (Papilio polyxenes). Ecol Entomol 6:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broom M, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2005) Evolutionary stable investment in secondary defences. Func Ecol 19:836–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen JA (1985) Differences and similarities in cardenolide contents of Queen and Monarch butterflies in Florida and their ecological and evolutionary implications. J Chem Ecol 11:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobler S, Rowell-Rahier M (1994) Response of a leaf beetle to two food plants, only one of which provides a sequestrable defensive chemical. Oecologia 97:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edmunds M (1974) Defense in animals. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  7. Gamberale-Stille G, Guilford T (2004) Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2621–2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Härlin C, Härlin M (2003) Towards a historization of aposematism. Evol Ecol 17:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Järvi T, Sillén-Tullberg 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 36:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Philpott SM, Greenberg R, Bichier P, Perfecto I (2004) Impacts of major predators on tropical agroforest arthropods: comparisons within and across taxa. Oecologia 140:140–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Riipi M, Alatalo RV, Lindström L, Mappes J (2001) Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature 431:512–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rowell-Rahier M, Pasteels JM (1986) Economics of chemical defense in Chrysomelinae. J Chem Ecol 12:1189–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Santos JC, Coloma LA, Cannatella DC (2003) Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:12792–12797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sherratt TN, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2004) Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J Theor Biol 228:217–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sillén-Tullberg B (1985) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67:411–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sillén-Tullberg B (1988) Evolution of gregariousness in aposematic butterfly larvae: a phylogenetic analysis. Evolution 42:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sillén-Tullberg B, Bryant EH (1983) The evolution of aposematic colouration in distasteful prey—an individual selection model. Evolution 37:993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2005) Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Speed MP (2001) Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism? Anim Behav 61:205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Speed MP, Ruxton GD, Broom M (2006) Automimicry and the evolution of discrete prey defences. Biol J Linn Soc 87:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Summers K, Clough ME (2001) The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:6227–6232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tullberg BS, Hunter AF (1996) Evolution of larval gregariousness in relation to repellent defences and warning coloration in tree feeding Macrolepidoptera: a phylogenetic analysis based on independent contrasts. Biol J Linn Soc 57:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogler AP, Kelly C (1998) Covariation of defensive traits in Tiger beetles (genus Cicindela): a phylogenetic approach using mt DNA. Evolution 52:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiklund C, Järvi T (1982) Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naïve birds: A reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36:998–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zalucki MP, Malcolm SB, Paine TD, Hanlon CC, Brower LP, Clarke AR (2001) It’s the first bites that count: survival of first-instar monarchs on milkweeds. Aust Ecol 26:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zrzavy J (1994) Red bugs and the origin of mimetic complexes (Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoridae: Neotropical dysdercus spp.). Oikos 69:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biology, Henry Wellcome Building for NeuroecologyUniversity of NewcastleFramlington PlaceUK

Personalised recommendations