A synthesis of deimatic behaviour

Drinkwater, Eleanor; Allen, William L.; Endler, John A.; Hanlon, Roger T.; Holmes, Grace G.; Homziak, Nicholas T.; Kang, Changku; Leavell, Brian C.; Lehtonen, Jussi; Loeffler‐Henry, Karl; Ratcliffe, John M.; Rowe, Candy; Ruxton, Graeme D.; Sherratt, Tom N.; Stachurski, John; Skojec, Chelsea; Smart, Hannah R.; White, Thomas E.; Yack, Jayne E.; Young, Catherine; Umbers, Kate D. L.

doi:10.1111/brv.12891

Cited by 37 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 244 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, the light areas of their hind wings were probably vividly coloured and only seen when in flight, as in various modern grasshoppers and some Cicadidae (Platypleura spp.) with bright hind wings hidden under cryptically coloured forewings at rest (so-called flash behaviour [Drinkwater et al, 2022]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Palaeontinidae (Cicadomorpha) from the Triassic of Central Asia: the earliest intimidating eyespots in Hemiptera

Shcherbakov

2022

euroasentj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Palaeontinidae (Cicadomorpha) from the Triassic of Central Asia: the earliest intimidating eyespots in Hemiptera

Shcherbakov

2022

euroasentj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Changed body shape may make a prey species seem larger and more difficult to handle (Griffiths, 2015;Kang et al, 2017;Loeffler-Henry et al, 2019). Revealing hidden colours has been assigned two different functional hypotheses: a bluff in the sense that there is no real punishment for predators that continue their attack (Edmunds, 1974), or as analogous to 'always on' aposematic defences where the colours signal unprofitability to predators (Cott, 1940;Drinkwater, 2022;Kang et al, 2016Kang et al, , 2017Lindström et al, 2001a;Loeffler-Henry et al, 2019;Skelhorn, Holmes, Hossie, et al, 2016;Skelhorn, Holmes, & Rowe, 2016;Smith, 1975;Vallin et al, 2005;Vidal-García et al, 2020). We tested the survival value of body shape and colouration in mountain katydids using representative clay models of different colours and shapes placed in the wild where katydids naturally occur.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or is the protective value derived from the hidden signal alone? These questions have not yet been answered satisfactorily in any system (Drinkwater, 2022), but answers are required if we are to move the field forward.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The protective value of the colour and shape of the mountain katydid's antipredator defence

Riley

Haff

Ryeland

et al. 2023

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deimatic behaviour is performed by prey when attacked by predators as part of an antipredator strategy. The behaviour is part of a sequence that consists of several defences, for example they can be preceded by camouflage and followed by a hidden putatively aposematic signal that is only revealed when the deimatic behaviour is performed. When displaying their hidden signal, mountain katydids (Acripeza reticulata) hold their wings vertically, exposing striking red and black stripes with blue spots and oozing an alkaloid‐rich chemical defence derived from its Senecio diet. Understanding differences and interactions between deimatism and aposematism has proven problematic, so in this study we isolated the putative aposematic signal of the mountain katydid's antipredator strategy to measure its survival value in the absence of their deimatic behaviour. We manipulated two aspects of the mountain katydid's signal, colour pattern and whole body shape during display. We deployed five kinds of clay models, one negative control and four katydid‐like treatments, in 15 grids across part of the mountain katydid's distribution to test the hypothesis that their hidden signal is aposematic. If this hypothesis holds true, we expected that the models, which most closely resembled real katydids would be attacked the least. Instead, we found that models that most closely resembled real katydids were the most likely to be attacked. We suggest several ideas to explain these results, including that the deimatic phase of the katydid's display, the change from a camouflaged state to exposing its hidden signal, may have important protective value.

show abstract

“…It is likely that the relative importance of primary and secondary defences shifts along such a predation sequence [see 41 for review]. For example, visual defences relying on the avoidance of detection precede bold deimatic displays by threatened prey warning a predator of underlying secondary defences [see 41,42 for reviews]. However, it is unknown how detectability and/or boldness change along an escalating predations sequence in the context of permanently displayed warning signals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signal detectability and boldness are not the same: the function of defensive colouration in nudibranchs is distance-dependent

Berg

Endler

Cheney

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aposematic signals advertise underlying defences in many species. They should be detectable (highly contrasting against the background) and bold (high internal pattern contrast) to enhance predator recognition, learning and memorisation. However, the signalling function of aposematic colour patterns may be distance-dependent: signals may be undetectable from a distance to reduce costs of increased attacks from na&iumlve predators but bold when viewed up close. To test this hypothesis, we quantified the chromatic and achromatic detectability and boldness of colour patterns in 13 nudibranch species that varied in the strength of their chemical defences, in terms of unpalatability and toxicity, using Quantitative Colour Pattern Analysis (QCPA) and data on the visual perception of a triggerfish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus). When viewed from larger distances, there were no differences in detectability and boldness between well-defended and undefended species. However, when viewed at close distances, well-defended species were more detectable and bolder than undefended species. The detectability of defended species decreased more significantly with increased viewing distances compared to boldness but remained relatively consistent over viewing distances for undefended species. We provide evidence for distance-dependent signalling in aposematic nudibranchs and highlight the importance of distinguishing between signal detectability and boldness in studies of aposematism.

show abstract

A synthesis of deimatic behaviour

Cited by 37 publications

References 244 publications

New Palaeontinidae (Cicadomorpha) from the Triassic of Central Asia: the earliest intimidating eyespots in Hemiptera

New Palaeontinidae (Cicadomorpha) from the Triassic of Central Asia: the earliest intimidating eyespots in Hemiptera

The protective value of the colour and shape of the mountain katydid's antipredator defence

Signal detectability and boldness are not the same: the function of defensive colouration in nudibranchs is distance-dependent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About