Tracking the evolution of warning signals

Alatalo, Rauno V.; Mappes, Johanna

doi:10.1038/382708a0

Cited by 255 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the function of conspicuousness in warning coloration has previously mainly been attributed to enhancing associative learning (Gittleman & Harvey 1980;Roper & Redston 1987;Schuler & Roper 1992;Alatalo & Mappes 1996;LindstrÎm et al 1999a; but see Figure 1. The mean bias against conspicuous crumbs eaten for all groups in experiment 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive

Lindström

Rowe

Guilford

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unpalatable insects frequently adopt multimodal signals to ward o¡ predators, incorporating sounds and odours into their colourful displays. Pyrazine is an odour commonly used in insect warning displays, and has previously been shown to elicit unlearned biases against common warning colours, e.g. yellow and red in naive predators. We designed two experiments to test for similar e¡ects of pyrazine on the conspicuousness of prey, perhaps the most ubiquitous aspect of aposematic coloration. In the ¢rst experiment, we o¡ered predators (Gallus gallus domesticus) a choice between conspicuous crumbs and cryptic crumbs in the presence or absence of pyrazine. In the second experiment, we manipulated the birds' experience of conspicuous prey during an initial training phase. Only in the presence of pyrazine did birds show a bias against conspicuously coloured food, and this occurred whether or not they had previously experienced food that contrasted with the background. This emergent behaviour relied upon the visual and odorous signal components being presented together. These unlearned, yet hidden, responses against conspicuousness demonstrate that there are initial bene¢ts to prey being conspicuous when the multimodal nature of warning signals is accounted for.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive

Lindström

Rowe

Guilford

2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). One explanation is that our prey lacked aposematic colouration, and hence did not evoke the kind of phobic reactions that are associated with aposematic aggregation (Gamberale and Tullberg 1996; but see Alatalo and Mappes 1996;Riipi et al 2001).…”

Section: Individual and Common Benefits From Toxin Investmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameterising a public good: how experiments on predation can be used to predict cheat frequencies

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical defence is superficially easy to understand as a means for individuals to protect themselves from enemies. The evolution of chemical defence is however potentially complex because such defences may cause the generation of a public good, protecting members of the population as a whole as well as individuals that deploy toxins defensively. If a public good of protection exists, it may be exploited and degraded by ''cheats'' that do not invest in defence. This can in turn lead to complex frequency (and density) dependent effects in toxin evolution. To investigate this we used ecologically relevant predators (Great tits, Parus major) and examined how individual and public benefits vary depending on the frequency of non-defended ''cheating'' prey and their spatial distribution. We found that the public benefit, of reduced attack probability, increased with increasing frequency of defended individuals. In contrast the individual benefit of chemical defence, measured as increased chance of rejection during an attack before injury, did not vary with the frequency of defended forms. Hence the selective dynamics of these two levels of benefits responded differently to the frequency of defended forms. Surprisingly, given the strong associations of chemical defences and grouping in animals, large aggregations did not help individuals in the group regardless of their defence status. The explanation for the result, may be that in our experiment birds did not have information about other potential aggregations (i.e. set up was sequential) and thus their giving up density was lower compared to the situations where set ups were simultaneous. We use behavioural data of our predators to construct a simple model of toxin evolution which can make quantitative predictions about the frequencies to which defence cheats evolve. We use this model to discuss how toxin evolution can be investigated in the wild and in laboratory settings.

show abstract

“…Alatalo & Mappes 1996). Yet, equally, one might assert that gregariousness is a consequence rather than a cause of distastefulness, in that only defended individuals can avail themselves of the benefits of group living (Sillén- Tullberg & Leimar 1988;Beatty et al 2005).…”

Section: Theoretical Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation, defence and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship

Ruxton

Sherratt

2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a seminal contribution, Fisher argued how distastefulness could incrementally evolve in a prey species that was distributed in family groups. Many defended prey species occur in aggregations, but did aggregation facilitate the evolution of defence as Fisher proposed or did the possession of a defence allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of group living? Contemporary theory suggests that it can work both ways: pre-existing defences can make the evolution of gregariousness easier, but gregariousness can also aid the evolution of defence and warning signals. Unfortunately, the key phylogenetic analyses to elucidate the ordering of events have been hampered by the relative rarity of gregarious species, which in itself indicates that aggregation is not a pre-requisite for defence. Like the underlying theory, experimental studies have not given a definitive answer to the relative timing of the evolution of defence and aggregation, except to demonstrate that both orderings are possible. Conspicuous signals are unlikely to have evolved in the absence of a defence and aggregated undefended prey are likely to be vulnerable to predation in the absence of satiation effects. It therefore seems most likely that defence generally preceded the evolution of both aggregation and signalling, but alternative routes may well be possible.

show abstract

Tracking the evolution of warning signals

Cited by 255 publications

References 23 publications

Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive

Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive

Parameterising a public good: how experiments on predation can be used to predict cheat frequencies

Aggregation, defence and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About