Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 415–431 | Cite as

Survival advantage of sluggish individuals in aggregations of aposematic prey, during encounters with ambush predators

  • John D. Hatle
  • Brent A. Salazar
  • Douglas W. Whitman

Abstract

Movement is an important element of prey defense ensembles. The adaptive advantages of either remaining motionless or rapid escape are clear. In contrast, putative benefits are unclear for sluggish movement of aposematic prey that are neither fleeing nor avoiding detection of predators. Nonetheless, sluggish movement is common in aposematic insects. Our central hypothesis is that sluggish movement evolved in part by motion-oriented predators culling the fastest-moving insects from an aggregation. This would be particularly likely in chemically defended prey, which would deter continued predation. We test predictions of our hypothesis with feeding experiments using the sluggish, gregarious Eastern lubber grasshopper and a motion-oriented predator, the Northern leopard frog. Sluggish-moving (i.e., control) grasshoppers were significantly less likely to be eaten than fast-moving (i.e., motion-induced) grasshoppers (p = 0.0098). Next, non-moving grasshoppers were used as extreme sluggish-moving prey. Non-moving prey were significantly less likely to be eaten than sluggish-moving grasshoppers (p = 0.05). In addition, and most importantly, sluggish-moving grasshoppers in an aggregation were significantly less likely to be attacked than fast-moving grasshoppers in the aggregation (p = 0.0156). Finally, the survivorship of sluggish-moving grasshoppers in pairings vs. aggregations was not significantly different (p = 0.33). Our results demonstrate that the fastest-moving individual in an aggregation of aposematic insects is more likely than sluggish cohorts to be attacked by motion-oriented predators. This survival disadvantage for fast-moving, gregarious prey could create a selection pressure for the evolution of sluggish movement as a defense mechanism in aposematic, gregarious prey.

anti-predator behaviors chemical defense frogs gregarious lubber grasshopper movement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, G.W. (1993) The modulation of feedingbehavio r in response to prey type in the frog Rana pipiens. J. Exp. Biol. 197, 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Bernays, E.A., Bright, K., Howard, J.J., Raubenheimer, D. and Champagne, D. (1992) Variety is the spice of life: frequent switching between foods in the polyphagous grasshopper Taeniopoda eques Burmeister (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Anim. Behav. 44, 721–731.Google Scholar
  3. Borchers, H.-W., Burghagen, H. and Ewert, J.-P. (1978) Key stimuli of prey for toads (Bufo bufo L.): configuration and movement patterns. J. Comp. Physiol. 125, 189–192.Google Scholar
  4. Chai, P. and Srygley, R.B. (1990) Predation and the flight, morphology, and temperature of neotropical rain-forest butterflies. Am. Nat. 135, 748–765.Google Scholar
  5. Chladny, T. and Whitman, D.W. (1997) A simple method to culture grasshopper eggs with long egg diapause. J. Orthoptera. Research. 6, 82.Google Scholar
  6. Edmunds, M. (1974) Defence in Animals: a Survey of Anti-Predator Defences. Longman Group, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Ewert, J.-P. (1987) Neuroethology of releasing mechanisms: prey catching in toads. Behav. Brain Sciences 10, 337–445.Google Scholar
  8. Freed, A.N. (1984) Foraging behaviour in the jumping spider Phidippus audax: bases for selectivity. J. Zool. Lond. 203, 49–61.Google Scholar
  9. Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B.S. (1996) Evidence for a more effective signal in aggregated aposematic prey. Anim. Behav. 52, 597–601.Google Scholar
  10. Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B.S. (1998) Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 265, 889–894.Google Scholar
  11. Gittleman, J.L. and Harvey, P.H. (1980) Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature 286, 149–150.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, S.J. and Vrba, E.S. (1982) Exaptation – a missingterm in the science of form. Paleobiology 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
  13. Guildford, T. (1986) How do ‘warningcolours’ work? Conspicuousness may reduce recognition errors in experienced predators. Anim. Behav. 34, 286–288.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 23–62.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, W.D. (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol. 31, 295–311.Google Scholar
  16. Hatle, J.D. and Townsend, V.R. Jr. (1996) Defensive secretion of a flightless grasshopper: failure to prevent lizard attack. Chemoecology 7, 184–188.Google Scholar
  17. Hatle, J.D. and Faragher, S.G. (1998) Slow movement increases the survivorship of a chemically defended grasshopper in predatory encounters. Oecologia 115, 260–267.Google Scholar
  18. Hatle, J.D. and Spring, J.H. (1998) Inter-individual variation in sequestration (as measured by energy dispersive spectroscopy) predicts efficacy of defensive secretion in lubber grasshoppers. Chemoecology 8, 85–90.Google Scholar
  19. Hatle, J.D. and Salazar, B.A. (2001) Aposematic coloration of gregarious insects can delay predation by an ambush predator. Env. Entomol. 30, 51–54.Google Scholar
  20. Hatle, J.D. and Whitman, D.W. (2001) Sluggish movement of aposematic insects as a defense against motion-oriented predators. In T.N. Anathnakrishna (ed.) Plant and Insect Defense Dynamics. Oxford and IBN Press, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  21. Jaeger, R.G., Wicknick, J.A., Griffis, M.A. and Anthony, C.D. (1995) Socioecology of a terrestrial salamander: juveniles enter adult territories duringstressful foragingperiods. Ecology 76, 533–543.Google Scholar
  22. Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg. B. and 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, 267–272.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, K.P., Mckinney, F., Wilson, R. and Sorenson, M.D. (2000) The evolution of postcopulatory displays in dabblingducks (Anatini): a phylogenetic perspective. Anim. Behav. 59, 953–963.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, C.G., Whitman, D.W., Compton, S.J., Silk, P.J. and Blum, M.S. (1989) Reduction in diet breadth results in sequestration of plant chemicals and increases efficacy of chemical defense in a generalist grasshopper. J. Chem. Ecol. 15, 1811–1822.Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman, D.W. (1974) Differential predation on active and inactive prey by owls. Auk 91, 172–173.Google Scholar
  26. Ketterson, E.D. and Nolan, V. Jr. (1999) Adaptation, exadaptation, and constraint: a hormonal perspective. Am. Nat. 154, S4–S25.Google Scholar
  27. Luthardt, G. and Roth, G. (1979) The relationship between stimulus orientation and stimulus movement pattern in the prey catchingbehavior of Salamandra salamandra. Copeia 1979, 442–447.Google Scholar
  28. Marden, J.H. and Chai, P. (1991) Aerial predation and butterfly design: how palatability, mimicry, and the need for evasive flight constrain mass allocation. Am. Nat. 138, 15–36.Google Scholar
  29. Mattison, C. (1999) Snake. DK PublishingInc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Pasteels, J.M., Gregoire, J-C. and Rowell-Rahier, M. (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 28, 263–289.Google Scholar
  31. Plomin, R. (1997) Behavioral Genetics. 3rd edn. WH Freeman, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Ricker, J.P. and Hirsch, J. (1988) Genetic changes occurring over 500 generations in lines of Drosophila melanogaster selected divergently for geotaxis. Behav. Genet. 18, 13–24.Google Scholar
  33. Rilling, S., Mittelstaedt, H. and Roeder, K.D. (1959) Prey recognition in the praying mantis. Behavior 14, 167–184.Google Scholar
  34. Roper, R.J. and Wistow, R. (1986) Aposematic colouration and avoidance learningin chicks. Quart. J. Exp. Psych. 38, 141–149.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, G. (1986) Neural mechanisms of prey recognition: an example in amphibians. In M.E. Feder and G.V. Lauder, (eds) Predator–prey Relationships: Perspectives and Approaches from the Lower Vertebrates. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, p.198.Google Scholar
  36. Rovner, J.S. (1993) Visually mediated responses in the lycosid spider Rabidosa rabida: the roles of different pairs of eyes. Mem Queensland Mus 33, 635–638.Google Scholar
  37. Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1990) Do predators avoid groups of aposematic prey? an experimental test. Anim. Behav. 40, 856–860.Google Scholar
  38. Sillén-Tullberg, B. and Leimar, O. (1988) The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. Am. Nat. 132, 723–734.Google Scholar
  39. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. Freeman, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Srygley, R.B. (1994) Locomotor mimicry in butterflies? The associations of positions of centers of mass amongg roups of mimetic, unprofitable prey. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 343, 145–150.Google Scholar
  41. Srygley, R.B. (1999) Incorporating motion into investigations of mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13, 691–708.Google Scholar
  42. Srygley, R.B. and Chai, P. (1990a) Flight morphology of Neotropical butterflies: palatability and distribution of mass to the thorax and abdomen. Oecologia 84, 491–499.Google Scholar
  43. Srygley, R.B. and Chai, P. (1990b) Predation and the elevation of thoracic temperature in brightly colored neotropical butterflies. Am. Nat. 135, 766–787.Google Scholar
  44. Sternthal, D.E. (1974) Olfactory and visual cues in the feedingbehavior of the leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Z. Tierpsychol. 34, 239–246.Google Scholar
  45. Stoltenberg, S.F., Hirsch, J. and Berlocher, S.H. (1995) Analyzing correlations of three types in selected lines of Drosophila melanogaster that have evolved stable extreme geotactic performance. J. Comp. Psych. 105, 85–94.Google Scholar
  46. Turner, G.F. and Pitcher, T.J. (1986) Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am. Nat. 128, 228–240.Google Scholar
  47. Vulinec, K. (1990) Collective security: aggregation by insects as a defense. 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. 251–288.Google Scholar
  48. Whitman, D.W. (1986) Laboratory biology of Taeniopoda eques (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J. Entomol. Sci. 21, 87–93.Google Scholar
  49. Whitman, D.W. (1987) Thermoregulation and daily activity patterns in a black desert grasshopper, Taeniopoda eques. Anim. Behav. 35, 1814–1826.Google Scholar
  50. Whitman, D.W. (1988a) Allelochemical interactions amongplants, herbivores, and their predators. In P. Barbosa and D. Letourneau, (eds) Novel aspects of insect–plant interactions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, pp. 11–64.Google Scholar
  51. Whitman, D.W. (1988b) Function and evolution of thermoregulation in the desert grasshopper Taeniopoda eques. J. Animal. Ecol. 57, 369–383.Google Scholar
  52. Whitman, D.W. (1990) Grasshopper chemical communication. In R. Chapman and A. Joern (eds) Biology of Grasshoppers. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 357–391.Google Scholar
  53. Whitman, D.W., Blum, M.S. and Jones, C.G. (1985) Chemical defense in Taeniopoda eques (Orthoptera: Acrididae): role of the metathoracic secretion. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 78, 451–455.Google Scholar
  54. Whitman, D.W., Blum, M.S. and Alsop, D.W. (1990) Allomones: chemicals for defense. 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. 289–351.Google Scholar
  55. Wiklund, C. and 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, 998–1002.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, S.E., Allen, J.A. and Anderson, K.P. (1990) Fast movement of densely aggregated prey increases the strength of anti-apostatic selection by wild birds. Biol. J. Linnean. Soc. 41, 375–380.Google Scholar
  57. Yosef, R. and Whitman, D.W. (1992) Predator exadaptations and defensive adaptation in evolutionary balance: no defense is perfect. Evol. Ecol. 6, 527–536.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John D. Hatle
    • 1
  • Brent A. Salazar
    • 1
  • Douglas W. Whitman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics SectionIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA; tel.:

Personalised recommendations