Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 579–589

Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live aposematic prey

  • Gabriella Gamberale-Stille
  • Birgitta S. Tullberg
Article

Abstract

An important factor for understanding the evolution of warning coloration in unprofitable prey is the synergistic effect produced by predator generalisation behaviour. Warning coloration can arise and become stabilised in a population of solitary prey if more conspicuous prey benefit from a predator's previous interaction with less conspicuous prey. This study investigates whether domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) show a biased generalisation among live aposematic prey by using larvae of three species of seed bugs (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) that are of similar shape but vary in the amount of red in the coloration. After positive experience of edible brownish prey, chicks in two reciprocal experiments received negative experience of either a slightly red or a more red distasteful larva. Attacking birds were then divided into two treatment groups, – one presented with the same prey again, and one presented with either a less red or a more red larva. Birds with only experience of edible prey showed no difference in attack probability of the two aposematic prey types. Birds with experience of the less red prey biased their avoidance so that prey with a more red coloration was avoided to a higher degree, whereas birds with experience of the more red prey avoided prey with the same, but not less red coloration. Thus, we conclude that bird predators may indeed show a biased generalisation behaviour that could select for and stabilise an aposematic strategy in solitary prey.

aposematism defence Graptostethus servus Lygaeus equestris predation stimulus generalization synergism Tropidothorax leucopterus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arak, A. and Enquist, M. (1995) Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 349, 337–344.Google Scholar
  2. Cott, H.B. (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  3. Dawkins, M.S. and Guilford, T. (1993) Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Tr. Neurosc. 16, 430–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edmunds, M. (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar
  5. Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B.S. (1996) Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1329–1334.Google Scholar
  6. Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B.S. (1998) Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 889–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guilford, T. (1985) Is kin selection involved in the evolution of warning coloration? Oikos 45, 31–36.Google Scholar
  8. Guilford, T. (1988) The evolution of conspicuous coloration. Am. Nat. 131, S7-S21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guilford, T. (1990) The evolution of aposematism. In D.L. Evans and J.O. Schmidt (eds) Insect defenses adaptive mechanisms and strategies of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 23–61.Google Scholar
  10. Hanson, H.M. (1959) Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. J. Exp. Psychol. 58, 321–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leimar, O., Enquist, M. and Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1986) Evolutionary stability of aposematic coloration and prey unprofitability: a theoretical analysis. Am. Nat. 128, 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leimar, O. and Tuomi, J. (1998) Synergistic selection and graded traits. Evol. Ecol. 12, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R.V., Mappes, J., Riipi, M. and Vertainen, L. (1999) Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397, 249–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poulton, E.B. (1898) Natural Selection: the cause of mimetic resemblance and common warning colours. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. 26, 558–612.Google Scholar
  15. Purtle, R.B. (1973) Peak shift: a review. Psychol. Bull. 80, 408–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Queller, D.C. (1985) Kinship, reciprocity and synergism in the evolution of social behaviour. Nature 318, 366–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, L.J. (1995) The development of brain and behaviour in the chicken. CAB International, Oxon.Google Scholar
  18. Roper, T.J. (1990) Responses of domestic chicks to artificially coloured insect prey: Effects of previous experience and background colour. Anim. Behav. 39, 466–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roper, T.J. and Cook, S.E. (1989) Responses of chicks to brightly coloured insect prey. Behaviour 110, 276–293.Google Scholar
  20. Schlernoff, D.H. (1984) Novelty: a basis for generalization in prey selection. Anim. Behav. 32, 919–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1985) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67, 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tullberg, B.S., Gamberale-Stille, G. and Solbreck, C. (2000) Effects of food plant and group size on predator defence: differences between two co-occurring aposematic Lygaeinae bugs. Ecol. Entomol. 25, 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner, J.R.G. (1984) Darwin's coffin and doctor Pangloss — do adaptionist models explain mimicry? In B. Shorrocks (ed.) Evolutionary ecology: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 313–361.Google Scholar
  24. Yachi, S. and Higashi, M. (1998) The evolution of warning signals. Nature 394, 882–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yachi, S. and Higashi, M. (1999) Modelling associative learning with generalization for a case of warning signals. Ecol. Res. 14, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Gamberale-Stille
    • 1
  • Birgitta S. Tullberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations