Why blue tongue? A potential UV-based deimatic display in a lizard

Abstract

Deimatic displays are a type of anti-predator behaviour that startles the predator. They have received much recent theoretical attention, enabling the empirical study of this phenomenon within a predictive framework. It has long been known that bluetongue skinks (Tiliqua spp.), when approached by predators, open their mouth widely and expose a conspicuously coloured tongue. Here, we test whether such ‘full-tongue’ displays are triggered by an imminent predatory attack in the Northern Bluetongue skink Tiliqua scincoides intermedia and examine whether this display behaviour is consistent with the predictions from deimatic display theory. First, we demonstrate that luminance at the rear of the tongue, which is only exposed during full-tongue displays, is almost twice as high for lizard and bird receivers compared to the tip of the tongue, and that tongue colouration is generally more conspicuous to a bird than a lizard visual system. Second, staged predatory encounters using model predators reveal that lizards primarily exhibit full-tongue displays in the final stages of a predatory attack. Lizards performed full-tongue displays congruent with the predictions associated with deimatic displays, i.e. rapid exposure of conspicuous elements from a previously inconspicuous state concurrently with aggressive defensive behaviour, most frequently during the final stages of a predatory encounter. Surprisingly, we also found that lizards vary the area of the tongue exposed during chemoexploratory tongue-flicks depending on whether a predator is present or absent.

Significance statement

Bluetongue skinks have long been known to expose their large blue tongue in response to predatory threats. However, this behaviour has never been investigated empirically. Here, we use Northern Bluetongue skinks (Tiliqua scincoides intermedia) to test whether this behaviour is consistent with predictions associated with deimatic displays. We show that the rear of their tongue is UV-blue and more conspicuous to predators compared to the tip and that this ‘full-tongue display’ is only triggered in the final stages of a predatory attack.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Abramjan A, Bauerová A, Somerová B, Frynta D (2015) Why is the tongue of blue-tongued skinks blue? Reflectance of lingual surface and its consequences for visual perception by conspecifics and predators. Naturwissenschaften 102:1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bateman AW, Vos M, Anholt BR (2014) When to defend: antipredator defenses and the predation sequence. Am Nat 183:847–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1(7). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4

  4. Belcher CA (1995) Diet of the tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). Wildl Res 22:341–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2006) JWatcher 1.0. http://www.jwatcher.ucla.edu

  6. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carazo P, Font E, Desfilis E (2007) Chemosensory assessment of rival competitive ability and scent-mark function in a lizard, Podarcis hispanica. Anim Behav 74:895–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caro T, Sherratt TN, Stevens M (2016) The ecology of multiple colour defences. Evol Ecol 30:797–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper WE (1998) Evaluation of swab and related tests as a bioassay for assessing responses by squamate reptiles to chemical stimuli. J Chem Ecol 24:841–866

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Bennett AT, Church SC, Hart NS, Hunt S (2000) Ultraviolet vision in birds. Adv Study Behav 29:159–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deeb SS (2010) Visual pigments and colour vision in marsupials and monotremes. In: Deakin JE, Waters PD, Marshall Graves JA (eds) Marsupial genetics and genomics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 403–414

    Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas RH, Jeffery G (2014) The spectral transmission of ocular media suggests ultraviolet sensitivity is widespread among mammals. Proc R Soc B 281:20132995–20132995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dutson G, Dutson L (2016) Microhabitat niche differentiation in sympatric eastern blue-tongued lizard Tiliqua scincoides and blotched blue-tongued lizard Tiliqua nigrolutea in Melbourne, Victoria. Vic Nat 133:55–58

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  15. Endler JA, Mielke PW (2005) Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol J Linn Soc 86:405–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzsimons JA (2011) Predation on a blotched bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua nigrolutea) by a highlands copperhead (Austrelaps ramsayi) in the Blue Mountains, Australia. Herpetol Notes 4:259–260

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fleishman LJ, Loew ER, Whiting MJ (2011) High sensitivity to short wavelengths in a lizard and implications for understanding the evolution of visual systems in lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2891–2899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Font E, Carazo P, Pérez i de Lanuza G, Kramer M (2012) Predator-elicited foot shakes in wall lizards (Podarcis muralis): evidence for a pursuit-deterrent function. J Comp Psychol 126:87–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gove D (1979) A comparative study of snake and lizard tongue-flicking, with an evolutionary hypothesis. Ethology 51:58–76

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hart NS (2001) The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res 20:675–703

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hart NS (2002) Vision in the peafowl (Aves: Pavo cristatus). J Exp Biol 205:3925–3935

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Humphries DA, Driver PM (1970) Protean defence by prey animals. Oecologia 5:285–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koenig J, Shine R, Shea G (2001) The ecology of an Australian reptile icon: how do blue-tongued lizards (Tiliqua scincoides) survive in suburbia? Wildl Res 28:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leal M, Fleishman LJ (2004) Differences in visual signal design and detectability between allopatric populations of Anolis lizards. Am Nat 163:26–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Loew ER, Fleishman LJ, Foster RG, Provencio I (2002) Visual pigments and oil droplets in diurnal lizards. J Exp Biol 205:927–938

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maan ME, Cummings ME (2012) Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179:E1–E14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton PP, Doucet SM, Shawkey MD (2013) Pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:906–913

    Google Scholar 

  29. Murray K, Bull CM (2004) Aggressiveness during monogamous pairing in the sleepy lizard, Tiliqua rugosa: a test of the mate guarding hypothesis. Acta Ethol 7:19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nielsen TP, Bull CM (2016) Impact of foxes digging for the pygmy bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis). Trans R Soc S Aust 140:228–233

    Google Scholar 

  31. Olsen J, Judge D, Fuentes E, Rose AB, Debus SJS (2010) Diets of wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila audax) and little eagles (Hieraaetus morphnoides) breeding near Canberra. J Raptor Res 44:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pérez i de Lanuza G, Carazo P, Font E (2014) Colours of quality: structural (but not pigment) coloration informs about male quality in a polychromatic lizard. Anim Behav 90:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Price-Rees SJ, Brown GP, Shine R (2013) Spatial ecology of bluetongue lizards (Tiliqua spp.) in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Austral Ecology 38:493–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Prum RO, Torres R (2003) Structural colouration of avian skin: convergent evolution of coherently scattering dermal collagen arrays. J Exp Biol 206:2409–2429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pyron RA, Burbrink FT, Wiens JJ (2013) A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evol Biol 13:93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  37. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwenk K (1995) Of tongues and noses: chemoreception in lizards and snakes. Trends Ecol Evol 10:7–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shine R, Phillips B, Waye H, LeMaster M, Mason RT (2003) Chemosensory cues allow courting male garter snakes to assess body length and body condition of potential mates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:162–166

    Google Scholar 

  41. Skelhorn J, Holmes GG, Rowe C (2016) Deimatic or aposematic? Anim Behav 113:e1–e3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2007) How bright and how nasty: explaining diversity in warning signal strength. Evolution 61:623–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stuart-Fox DM, Whiting MJ, Moussalli A (2006) Camouflage and colour change: antipredator responses to bird and snake predators across multiple populations in a dwarf chameleon. Biol J Linn Soc 88:437–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Umbers KDL, Mappes J (2015) Postattack deimatic display in the mountain katydid, Acripeza reticulata. Anim Behav 100:68–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Umbers KDL, Mappes J (2016) Towards a tractable working hypothesis for deimatic displays. Anim Behav 113:e5–e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Umbers KDL, Lehtonen J, Mappes J (2015) Deimatic displays. Curr Biol 25:58–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Umbers KDL, De Bonna S, White TE, Lehtonen J, Mappes J, Endler JA (2017) Deimatism: a neglected dimension of anti-predator defense. Biol Lett 13:20160936

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C (2005) Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1203–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett AT, Marshall NJ, Cuthill IC (1998) Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol A 183:621–633

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Grant Napier for his invaluable field assistance, Sarah Pryke for loaning us a reflectance spectrophotometer, and Bill Stewart and Corrin Everitt for making their property available for our study. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for improving this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by funding to MJW from Macquarie University. AB was funded by an iMQRES doctoral scholarship awarded by Macquarie University (2014166), and PC was funded by an Endeavour fellowship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MJW and PC conceived the study. SJPR, PC, and MJW conducted the experiments and collected the morphological and colour measurements. AB scored the behaviours. MFB took the tongue measurements. AB and PC carried out the statistical analyses. AB, PC, and MJW drafted the manuscript, and all authors provided feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin J. Whiting.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

For the handling of animals, we followed the ABS (Animal Behavior Society)/ASAB (Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour) ‘Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching’. Our research protocols were approved by the Macquarie University Animal Ethics Committee and University of Sydney Animal Care and Ethics Committee, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, and the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by T. Madsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Badiane, A., Carazo, P., Price-Rees, S.J. et al. Why blue tongue? A potential UV-based deimatic display in a lizard. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72, 104 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2512-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deimatic displays
  • Anti-predator behaviour
  • Reptile
  • Coloration