A lure at both ends: aggressive visual mimicry signals and prey-specific luring behaviour in an ambush-foraging snake
- 719 Downloads
Aggressive mimic species use signals typically resembling an attractive or harmless model to deceive other organisms in order to increase foraging success. With the exception of a few brood parasitic birds that combine two signals, most known cases of aggressive mimicry involve only a single signal. Here, we used fixed videography, a technique which consisted in setting up continuously recording videocameras focused on ambushing animals, to describe—for the first time—the use of two clearly distinct aggressive visual mimicry signals in the same organism, the puff adder (Bitis arietans). Our observational data collected in South Africa revealed that puff adders extended their tongues (lingual luring) and waived their tails (caudal luring), presumably mimicking an invertebrate model, in order to lure prey within striking range. Lingual luring occurred only in the presence of amphibian prey, indicating discrimination between prey types. Our study reveals the diverse predatory strategies and complex decision-making process used by ‘sit-and-wait’ predators, such as ambush-foraging snakes, to catch prey, and indicates that snakes may have higher cognitive abilities than those usually afforded to them.
Predators exhibit various strategies to increase rates of prey capture. One strategy involves the use of luring behaviours, which are signals designed to attract prey within striking range. Using remote videocameras focused on ambush-hunting puff adders (Bitis arietans) in the field, we report—for the first time—the use of two clearly distinct luring behaviours in the same organism: puff adders extended their tongues and waived their tails, which presumably resemble invertebrate prey, to draw prey within striking range. Tongue-luring behaviour was solely used in the presence of amphibian prey, which indicates that puff adders distinguished between prey types. Our research underscores that the predatory decisions made by ambush-foraging snakes are diverse and context-dependent and further demonstrates that these predators possess higher cognitive abilities than first expected.
KeywordsCaudal luring Coevolution Lingual luring Predator-prey relationship Puff adder
We thank two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript; K. Erlwanger, M.A. Costello and K. Thambu and the central animal service staff at the University of Witwatersrand for assisting with surgical procedures; G. Sauthier and H. Van Der Vyver for field assistance; and the landowners of the Dinokeng Game Reserve that granted us access to their properties to track snakes, specifically the Graf, Anderson, Engelbrecht, Keith, Leroux, Pretorius families, G. and T. Anderson and F. Erasmus. Last but not least, Gerd and Tienie Graf at iKhaya LamaDube Game Lodge greatly facilitated this study by providing free accommodation and good company for more than 3 years.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was partly supported by a research grant from the Committee for Research and Exploration at the National Geographic Society (no. 9443-14) to XG and GJA and by postdoctoral fellowships from the Claude Leon Foundation and the University of the Witwatersrand’s research office to XG.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (University of the Witwatersrand, animal protocol no. 2012-42-04). Specimens were collected under scientific research permits CPF6-0167 and CPF6-0024, issued by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Alexander GJ (2007) Thermal biology of the southern African python (Python natalensis): does temperature limit its distribution. In: Henderson RW, Powell R (eds) Biology of the boas and pythons. Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, pp. 50–75Google Scholar
- Christy JH, Rittschof D (2011) Deception in visual and chemical communication in crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Thiel M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, pp. 313–333Google Scholar
- Driver A, Maze K, Rouget M et al. (2005) National spatial biodiversity assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
- du Preez L, Carruthers V (2009) A complete guide to the frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
- FitzSimons VFM (1962) Snakes of Southern Africa. Purnell and Sons, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
- Goodman JD, Goodman JM (1976) Possible mimetic behavior of the twig snake, Thelotornis kirtlandi kirtlandi (Hallowell). Herpetologica 32:148–150Google Scholar
- Greene HW (1988) Antipredator mechanisms in reptiles. In: Gans C, Huey RB (eds) Biology of the Reptilia, Alan R, vol 16. Liss, New York, pp. 1–152Google Scholar
- IBM Corp (2015) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 23.0., https://www.ibm.com/analytics/us/en/technology/spss/
- Lillywhite HB, Henderson RW (1993) Behavioral and functional ecology of arboreal snakes. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT (eds) Snakes: ecology and behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1–48Google Scholar
- Master TL (1991) Use of tongue-flicking behavior by the snowy egret. J Field Ornithol 62:399–402Google Scholar
- Mullin SJ (1999) Caudal distraction by rat snakes (Colubridae, Elaphe): a novel behavior used when capturing mammalian prey. Great Basin Nat 59:361–367Google Scholar
- Pernetta AP, Ross TN, Jones CG (2005) Leiolopisma telfairii (Telfair’s Skink): caudal luring. Herpetol Rev 36:320–321Google Scholar
- Putman BJ, Clark RW (2015b) Crotalus oreganus (northern pacific rattlesnake): non-rattling tail display. Herpetol Rev 46:269–270Google Scholar
- Rabatsky AM (2008) Caudal luring as a precursor in the evolution of the rattle: a test using an ancestral rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarius barbouri. In: Hayes WK, Beaman KR, Cardwell MD, Bush SP (eds) The biology of rattlesnakes. Loma Linda University Press, Loma Linda, pp. 143–154Google Scholar
- Randall JE (2005) A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zool Stud 44:299–328Google Scholar
- Reinert HK (1992) Radiotelemetric field studies of pitvipers: data acquisition and analysis. In: Campbell JA, Brodie Jr ED (eds) Biology of the pitvipers. Selva Press, Tyler, pp. 185–198Google Scholar
- Reiserer RS (2002) Stimulus control of caudal luring and other feeding responses: a program for research on visual perception in vipers. In: Schuett GW, Höggren M, Douglas ME, Greene HW (eds) Biology of the vipers. Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, pp. 361–383Google Scholar
- Shulze RE (1997) South African atlas of agrohydrology and climatology. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
- StatSoft Inc. (2014) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 12, www.statsoft.com
- Wickler W (1968) Mimicry in plants and animals. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar