Effects of nicotine on the digestive performance of nectar-feeding birds reflect their relative tolerance to this alkaloid

Do predator energy demands or previous exposure influence protection by aposematic coloration of prey?

Growing evidence exists that aposematic and toxic prey may be included in a predator's diet when the predator experiences physiological stress. The tree sparrow Passer montanus is known to have a significant portion of aposematic and toxic ladybirds in its natural diet. Here, we present experiments testing the attack and eating rate of the tree sparrow toward the invasive aposematic harlequin ladybird Harmonia axyridis. We wondered whether the sparrow's ability to prey on native ladybirds predisposes them to also prey on harlequin ladybirds. We compared the attack and eating rates of tree sparrows of particular age and/or experience classes to test for any changes during ontogeny (hand-reared × young wild-caught ×adult wild-caught) and with differing perceived levels of physiological stress (summer adult × winter adult). Winter adult tree sparrows commonly attacked and ate the offered ladybirds with no evidence of disgust or metabolic difficulties after ingestion. Naïve and wild immature tree sparrows attacked the ladybirds but hesitated to eat them. Adult tree sparrows caught in the summer avoided attacking the ladybirds. These results suggest that tree sparrows are able to cope with chemicals ingested along with the ladybirds. This pre-adaptation enables them to include ladybirds in their diet; though they commonly do this only in times of shortage in insect availability (winter). Young sparrows showed avoidance toward the chemical protection of the ladybirds.

Detoxification and elimination of nicotine by nectar-feeding birds

Many dilute nectars consumed by bird pollinators contain secondary metabolites, potentially toxic chemicals produced by plants as defences against herbivores. Consequently, nectar-feeding birds are challenged not only by frequent water excess, but also by the toxin content of their diet. High water turnover, however, could be advantageous to nectar consumers by enabling them to excrete secondary metabolites or their transformation products more easily. We investigated how the alkaloid nicotine, naturally present in nectar of Nicotiana species, influences osmoregulation in white-bellied sunbirds Cinnyris talatala and Cape white-eyes Zosterops virens. We also examined the metabolic fate of nicotine in these two species to shed more light on the post-ingestive mechanisms that allow nectar-feeding birds to tolerate nectar nicotine. A high concentration of nicotine (50 µM) decreased cloacal fluid output and increased its osmolality in both species, due to reduced food intake that led to dehydration. White-eyes excreted a higher proportion of the ingested nicotine-containing diet than sunbirds. However, sugar concentration did not affect nicotine detoxification and elimination. Both species metabolised nicotine, excreting very little unchanged nicotine. Cape white-eyes mainly metabolised nicotine through the cotinine metabolic pathway, with norcotinine being the most abundant metabolite in the excreta, while white-bellied sunbirds excreted mainly nornicotine. Both species also utilized phase II conjugation reactions to detoxify nicotine, with Cape white-eyes depending more on the mercapturic acid pathway to detoxify nicotine than white-bellied sunbirds. We found that sunbirds and white-eyes, despite having a similar nicotine tolerance, responded differently and used different nicotine-derived metabolites to excrete nicotine.

The Impact of Detoxification Costs and Predation Risk on Foraging: Implications for Mimicry Dynamics

Prey often evolve defences to deter predators, such as noxious chemicals including toxins. Toxic species often advertise their defence to potential predators by distinctive sensory signals. Predators learn to associate toxicity with the signals of these so-called aposematic prey, and may avoid them in future. In turn, this selects for mildly toxic prey to mimic the appearance of more toxic prey. Empirical evidence shows that mimicry could be either beneficial (‘Mullerian’) or detrimental (‘quasi-Batesian’) to the highly toxic prey, but the factors determining which are unknown. Here, we use state-dependent models to explore how tri-trophic interactions could influence the evolution of prey defences. We consider how predation risk affects predators’ optimal foraging strategies on aposematic prey, and explore the resultant impact this has on mimicry dynamics between unequally defended species. In addition, we also investigate how the potential energetic cost of metabolising a toxin can alter the benefits to eating toxic prey and thus impact on predators’ foraging decisions. Our model predicts that both how predators perceive their own predation risk, and the cost of detoxification, can have significant, sometimes counterintuitive, effects on the foraging decisions of predators. For example, in some conditions predators should: (i) avoid prey they know to be undefended, (ii) eat more mildly toxic prey as detoxification costs increase, (iii) increase their intake of highly toxic prey as the abundance of undefended prey increases. These effects mean that the relationship between a mimic and its model can qualitatively depend on the density of alternative prey and the cost of metabolising toxins. In addition, these effects are mediated by the predators’ own predation risk, which demonstrates that, higher trophic levels than previously considered can have fundamental impacts on interactions among aposematic prey species.

Do sunbirds use taste to decide how much to drink?

Nectarivorous birds typically consume smaller meals of more concentrated than of less concentrated sugar solutions. It is not clear, however, whether they use taste to decide how much to consume or whether they base this decision on post-ingestive feedback. Taste, a cue to nectar concentration, is available to nectarivores during ingestion whereas post-ingestive information about resource quality becomes available only after a meal. When conditions are variable, we would expect nectarivorous birds to base their decisions on how much to consume on taste, as post-ingestive feedback from previous meals would not be a reliable cue to current resource quality. Here, we tested whether white-bellied sunbirds (Cinnyris talatala), foraging from an array of artificial flowers, use taste to decide how much to consume per meal when nectar concentration is highly variable: they did not. Instead, how much they chose to consume per meal appeared to depend on the energy intake at the previous meal, that is how hungry they were. Our birds did, however, appear to use taste to decide how much to consume per flower visited within a meal. Unexpectedly, some individuals preferred to consume more from flowers with lower concentration rewards and some preferred to do the opposite. We draw attention to the fact that many studies perhaps misleadingly claim that birds use sweet taste to inform their foraging decisions, as they analyse mean data for multiple meals over which post-ingestive feedback will have become available rather than data for individual meals when only sensory information is available. We discuss how conflicting foraging rules could explain why sunbirds do not use sweet taste to inform their meal size decisions.