How weird can mimicry get?

Multimodal Aposematic Defenses Through the Predation Sequence

Aposematic organisms warn predators of their unprofitability using a combination of defenses, including visual warning signals, startling sounds, noxious odors, or aversive tastes. Using multiple lines of defense can help prey avoid predators by stimulating multiple senses and/or by acting at different stages of predation. We tested the efficacy of three lines of defense (color, smell, taste) during the predation sequence of aposematic wood tiger moths (Arctia plantaginis) using blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) predators. Moths with two hindwing phenotypes (genotypes: WW/Wy = white, yy = yellow) were manipulated to have defense fluid with aversive smell (methoxypyrazines), body tissues with aversive taste (pyrrolizidine alkaloids) or both. In early predation stages, moth color and smell had additive effects on bird approach latency and dropping the prey, with the strongest effect for moths of the white morph with defense fluids. Pyrrolizidine alkaloid sequestration was detrimental in early attack stages, suggesting a trade-off between pyrrolizidine alkaloid sequestration and investment in other defenses. In addition, pyrrolizidine alkaloid taste alone did not deter bird predators. Birds could only effectively discriminate toxic moths from non-toxic moths when neck fluids containing methoxypyrazines were present, at which point they abandoned attack at the consumption stage. As a result, moths of the white morph with an aversive methoxypyrazine smell and moths in the treatment with both chemical defenses had the greatest chance of survival. We suggest that methoxypyrazines act as context setting signals for warning colors and as attention alerting or “go-slow” signals for distasteful toxins, thereby mediating the relationship between warning signal and toxicity. Furthermore, we found that moths that were heterozygous for hindwing coloration had more effective defense fluids compared to other genotypes in terms of delaying approach and reducing the latency to drop the moth, suggesting a genetic link between coloration and defense that could help to explain the color polymorphism. Conclusively, these results indicate that color, smell, and taste constitute a multimodal warning signal that impedes predator attack and improves prey survival. This work highlights the importance of understanding the separate roles of color, smell and taste through the predation sequence and also within-species variation in chemical defenses.

Umbrella of protection: spatial and temporal dynamics in a temperate butterfly Batesian mimicry system

Batesian mimicry involves both spatial and temporal interactions between model, mimic and predator. Fundamental predictions in Batesian mimicry involve space, time and abundance; specifically, that the model and mimic are found in sympatry and that protection for the mimic is increased when predators interact with the model first and more frequently. Research has generally confirmed these predictions for Batesian mimicry at large spatial scales, with recent work on two nymphalid butterflies in western North America, the mimic Limenitis lorquini (Boisduval, 1852) and its model Adelpha californica (Butler, 1865) in western North America indicating that the mimic generally has lower abundance and emerges later in the season among widely separated populations in the California Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. However, no studies have investigated model–mimic dynamics at small scales in the temperate zone to test whether temporal habitat use and movements conform to predictions. If mimicry is as important a part of the biology of these temperate species as it is for their tropical counterparts, then in addition to emerging later and being less abundant overall, the mimic should be less widespread, should be less abundant in each habitat and should move less among available habitats. Our results using mark–release–recapture methods confirm these predictions and indicate that the mimic, L. lorquini, is enjoying an umbrella of protection against habitat specialist and generalist predators alike.

Numbers, neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?

Many chemically defended aposematic species are characterized by relatively low toxin levels, which enables predators to include them in their diets under certain circumstances. Knowledge of the conditions governing the survival of such prey animals-especially in the context of the co-occurrence of similar but undefended prey, which may result in mimicry-like interactions-is crucial for understanding the initial evolution of aposematism. In a one-month outdoor experiment using fish (the common carp Cyprinus carpio) as predators, we examined the survival of moderately defended aposematic tadpole prey (the European common toad Bufo bufo) with varying absolute densities in single-species prey systems or varying relative densities in two-species prey systems containing morphologically similar but undefended prey (the European common frog Rana temporaria). The density effects were investigated in conjunction with the hunger levels of the predator, which were manipulated by means of the addition of alternative (nontadpole) food. The survival of the B. bufo tadpoles was promoted by increasing their absolute density in the single-species prey systems, increasing their relative density in the two-species prey systems, and providing ample alternative food for the predator. Hungry predators eliminated all R. temporaria individuals regardless of their proportion in the prey community; in treatments with ample alternative food, high relative B. bufo density supported R. temporaria survival. The results demonstrated that moderately defended prey did benefit from high population densities (both absolute and relative), even under long-term predation pressure. However, the physiological state of the predator was a crucial factor in the survival of moderately defended prey. While the availability of alternative prey in general should promote the spread and maintenance of aposematism, the results indicated that the resemblance between the co-occurring defended and undefended prey may impose mortality costs on the defended model species, even in the absence of actual mimicry.

State-Dependent Decision-Making by Predators and Its Consequences for Mimicry

AbstractThe mimicry of one species by another provides one of the most celebrated examples of evolution by natural selection. Edible Batesian mimics deceive predators into believing they may be defended, whereas defended Müllerian mimics have evolved a shared warning signal, more rapidly educating predators to avoid them. However, it may benefit hungry predators to attack defended prey, while the benefits of learning about unfamiliar prey depends on the future value of this information. Previous energetic state-dependent models of predator foraging behavior have assumed complete knowledge, while informational state-dependent models have assumed fixed levels of hunger. Here, we identify the optimal decision rules of predators accounting for both energetic and informational states. We show that the nature of mimicry is qualitatively and quantitatively affected by both sources of state dependence. Associative learning weakens the extent of parasitic mimicry by edible prey because naive predators often attack defended models. More importantly, mimicry among equally highly defended prey may be parasitic or mutualistic depending on the ecological context (e.g., the source of mimics and the abundance of alternative prey). Finally, mimicry by prey with intermediate defenses corresponds to Batesian or Müllerian mimicry depending on whether the mimic is profitable to attack by hungry predators, but it is not a special case of mimicry.

Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm?

Aposematic theory has historically predicted that predators should select for warning signals to converge on a single form, as a result of frequency-dependent learning. However, widespread variation in warning signals is observed across closely related species, populations and, most problematically for evolutionary biologists, among individuals in the same population. Recent research has yielded an increased awareness of this diversity, challenging the paradigm of signal monomorphy in aposematic animals. Here we provide a comprehensive synthesis of these disparate lines of investigation, identifying within them three broad classes of explanation for variation in aposematic warning signals: genetic mechanisms, differences among predators and predator behaviour, and alternative selection pressures upon the signal. The mechanisms producing warning coloration are also important. Detailed studies of the genetic basis of warning signals in some species, most notably Heliconius butterflies, are beginning to shed light on the genetic architecture facilitating or limiting key processes such as the evolution and maintenance of polymorphisms, hybridisation, and speciation. Work on predator behaviour is changing our perception of the predator community as a single homogenous selective agent, emphasising the dynamic nature of predator-prey interactions. Predator variability in a range of factors (e.g. perceptual abilities, tolerance to chemical defences, and individual motivation), suggests that the role of predators is more complicated than previously appreciated. With complex selection regimes at work, polytypisms and polymorphisms may even occur in Müllerian mimicry systems. Meanwhile, phenotypes are often multifunctional, and thus subject to additional biotic and abiotic selection pressures. Some of these selective pressures, primarily sexual selection and thermoregulation, have received considerable attention, while others, such as disease risk and parental effects, offer promising avenues to explore. As well as reviewing the existing evidence from both empirical studies and theoretical modelling, we highlight hypotheses that could benefit from further investigation in aposematic species. Finally by collating known instances of variation in warning signals, we provide a valuable resource for understanding the taxonomic spread of diversity in aposematic signalling and with which to direct future research. A greater appreciation of the extent of variation in aposematic species, and of the selective pressures and constraints which contribute to this once-paradoxical phenomenon, yields a new perspective for the field of aposematic signalling.

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.

The benefits of being toxic to deter predators depends on prey body size

Many prey have evolved toxins as a defense against predation. Those species that advertise their toxicity to would-be predators with conspicuous warning signals are known as "aposematic." Investment in toxicity by aposematically signaling prey is thought to underpin how aversive prey are to predators; increasing toxicity means that predators learn to avoid prey faster and attack them at lower rates. However, predators' foraging decisions on aposematic prey are determined not only by their toxicity, but also by their nutrient content: predators can trade-off the costs of ingesting toxin with the benefits of acquiring nutrients. Prey body size is a cue that positively correlates with nutrient content, and that varies within and between aposematic species. We predicted that a dose of quinine (known to be toxic to birds) would be a more effective deterrent to avian predators when prey were small compared with when they were large, and that the benefits of possessing toxin would be greater for small-bodied prey. Using an established laboratory protocol of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) foraging on mealworms (Tenebrio molitor), we found evidence for increased protection from a dose of quinine for small-bodied compared with large-bodied prey. This shows that larger prey need more toxin to attain the same level of defense as smaller prey, which has implications for the evolution of aposematism and mimicry.

Body size matters for aposematic prey during predator aversion learning

Aposematic prey advertise their toxicity to predators using conspicuous warning signals, which predators learn to use to reduce their intake of toxic prey. Like other types of prey, aposematic prey often differ in body size, both within and between species. Increasing body size can increase signal size, which make larger aposematic prey more detectable but also gives them a more effective and salient deterrent. However, increasing body size also increases the nutritional value of prey, and larger aposematic prey may make a more profitable meal to predators that are trading off the costs of eating toxins with the benefits of ingesting nutrients. We tested if body size, independent of signal size, affected predation of toxic prey as predators learn to reduce their attacks on them. European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) learned to discriminate between defended (quinine-injected) and undefended (water-injected) mealworm prey (Tenebrio molitor) using visual signals. During this process, we found that birds attacked and ate more defended prey the larger they were. Body size does affect the probability that toxic prey are attacked and eaten, which has implications for the evolutionary dynamics of aposematism and mimicry (where species share the same warning pattern).

Nest defenses and egg recognition of yellow-bellied prinia against cuckoo parasitism

Parasites may, in multi-parasite systems, block the defenses of their hosts and thus thwart host recognition of parasites by frequency-dependent selection. Nest defenses as frontline may block or promote the subsequent stage of defenses such as egg recognition. We conducted comparative studies of the defensive strategies of a host of the Oriental cuckoo Cuculus optatus, the yellow-bellied prinia Prinia flaviventris, in mainland China with multiple species of cuckoos and in Taiwan with a single cuckoo species. Cuckoo hosts did not exhibit aggression toward cuckoos in the presence of multiple cuckoo species but showed strong aggressive defenses of hosts directed toward cuckoos in Taiwan. Furthermore, the cuckoo host in populations with a single cuckoo species was able to distinguish adults of its brood parasite, the Oriental cuckoo, from adult common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus). This represents the first case in which a cuckoo host has been shown to specifically distinguish Oriental cuckoo, from other Cuculus species. Hosts ejected eggs at a higher rate in a single cuckoo species system than in a multi-species cuckoo system, which supports the strategy facilitation hypothesis. Granularity analysis of variation in egg phenotype based on avian vision modeling supported the egg signature hypothesis in hosts because Taiwanese prinias increased consistency in the appearance of their eggs within individual hosts thus favoring efficient discrimination against cuckoo eggs. This study significantly improves our knowledge of intraspecific variation in antiparasitism behavior of hosts between single- and multi-cuckoo systems.

Increased predation of nutrient-enriched aposematic prey

Avian predators readily learn to associate the warning coloration of aposematic prey with the toxic effects of ingesting them, but they do not necessarily exclude aposematic prey from their diets. By eating aposematic prey ‘educated’ predators are thought to be trading-off the benefits of gaining nutrients with the costs of eating toxins. However, while we know that the toxin content of aposematic prey affects the foraging decisions made by avian predators, the extent to which the nutritional content of toxic prey affects predators' decisions to eat them remains to be tested. Here, we show that European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) increase their intake of a toxic prey type when the nutritional content is artificially increased, and decrease their intake when nutritional enrichment is ceased. This clearly demonstrates that birds can detect the nutritional content of toxic prey by post-ingestive feedback, and use this information in their foraging decisions, raising new perspectives on the evolution of prey defences. Nutritional differences between individuals could result in equally toxic prey being unequally predated, and might explain why some species undergo ontogenetic shifts in defence strategies. Furthermore, the nutritional value of prey will likely have a significant impact on the evolutionary dynamics of mimicry systems.

Predators' decisions to eat defended prey depend on the size of undefended prey

Predators that have learned to associate warning coloration with toxicity often continue to include aposematic prey in their diet in order to gain the nutrients and energy that they contain. As body size is widely reported to correlate with energetic content, we predicted that prey size would affect predators' decisions to eat aposematic prey. We used a well-established system of wild-caught European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris, foraging on mealworms, Tenebrio molitor, to test how the size of undefended (water-injected) and defended (quinine-injected) prey, on different coloured backgrounds, affected birds' decisions to eat defended prey. We found that birds ate fewer defended prey, and less quinine, when undefended prey were large compared with when they were small, but that the size of the defended prey had no effect on the numbers eaten. Consequently, we found no evidence that the mass of the defended prey or the overall mass of prey ingested affected the amount of toxin that a predator was willing to ingest, and instead the mass of undefended prey eaten was more important. This is a surprising finding, challenging the assumptions of state-dependent models of aposematism and mimicry, and highlighting the need to understand better the mechanisms of predator decision making. In addition, the birds did not learn to discriminate visually between defended and undefended prey based on size, but only on the basis of colour. This suggests that colour signals may be more salient to predators than size differences, allowing Batesian mimics to benefit from aposematic models even when they differ in size.

Survival benefits in mimicry: a quantitative framework

Mimicry is a resemblance between species that benefits at least one of the species. It is a ubiquitous evolutionary phenomenon particularly common among prey species, in which case the advantage involves better protection from predation. We formulate a mathematical description of predation, to investigate benefits and disadvantages of mimicry. The basic setup involves differential equations for quantities representing predator behavior, namely, the probabilities for attacking prey at the next encounter. Using this framework, we present new quantitative results, and also provide a unified description of a significant fraction of the quantitative mimicry literature. The new results include "temporary" mutualism between prey species, and an optimal density at which the survival benefit is greatest for the mimic. The formalism leads naturally to extensions in several directions, such as the interplay of mimicry with population dynamics, studies of spatiotemporal patterns, etc. We demonstrate this extensibility by presenting some explorations on spatiotemporal pattern dynamics.

The evolution of Müllerian mimicry

It is now 130 years since Fritz Müller proposed an evolutionary explanation for the close similarity of co-existing unpalatable prey species, a phenomenon now known as Müllerian mimicry. Müller’s hypothesis was that unpalatable species evolve a similar appearance to reduce the mortality involved in training predators to avoid them, and he backed up his arguments with a mathematical model in which predators attack a fixed number (n) of each distinct unpalatable type in a given season before avoiding them. Here, I review what has since been discovered about Müllerian mimicry and consider in particular its relationship to other forms of mimicry. Müller’s specific model of associative learning involving a “fixed n” in a given season has not been supported, and several experiments now suggest that two distinct unpalatable prey types may be just as easy to learn to avoid as one. Nevertheless, Müller’s general insight that novel unpalatable forms have higher mortality than common unpalatable forms as a result of predation has been well supported by field experiments. From its inception, there has been a heated debate over the nature of the relationship between Müllerian co-mimics that differ in their level of defence. There is now a growing awareness that this relationship can be mediated by many factors, including synergistic effects between co-mimics that differ in their mode of defence, rates of generalisation among warning signals and concomitant changes in prey density as mimicry evolves. I highlight areas for future enquiry, including the possibility of Müllerian mimicry systems based on profitability rather than unprofitability and the co-evolution of defence.

Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry?

Müllerian mimicry, where two unpalatable species share a warning pattern, is classically believed to be a form of mutualism, where the species involved share the cost of predator education. The evolutionary dynamics of Müllerian mimicry have recently become a controversial subject, after mathematical models have shown that if minor alterations are made to assumptions about the way in which predators learn and forget about unpalatable prey, this textbook case of mutualism may not be mutualistic at all. An underlying assumption of these models is that Müllerian mimics possess the same defence chemical. However, some Müllerian mimics are known to possess different defence chemicals. Using domestic chicks as predators and coloured crumbs flavoured with either the same or different unpalatable chemicals as prey, we provide evidence that two defence chemicals can interact to enhance predator learning and memory. This indicates that Müllerian mimics that possess different defence chemicals are better protected than those that share a single defence chemical. These data provide insight into how multiple defence chemicals are perceived by birds,and how they influence the way birds learn and remember warningly coloured prey. They highlight the importance of considering how different toxins in mimicry rings can interact in the evolution and maintenance of Müllerian mimicry and could help to explain the remarkable variation in chemical defences found within and between species.

Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour

Müllerian mimicry is typically thought to arise as a consequence of defended prey species adopting a similar way of signalling their unprofitability, thereby reducing the costs of predator education. Here we consider subsequent selection on the morphology of prey species, in the potentially lengthy period of time when predators are generally aware of the noxious qualities of their prey (and so no further learning is involved). Using a pair of stochastic dynamic programming equations which describe both the toxin burdens of a predator and its energy level, we identified the optimal state-dependent rules that maximize a predator's long-term survivorship, and examined the implications of this behaviour for the evolution of prey morphologies. When palatable prey are in short supply then those prey species which contain relatively low doses of toxins become profitable to consume by hungry predators. Under these conditions, a weakly defended prey could gain selective advantage in the post educational period by resembling a prey species which contained a higher dose of the same or different toxins, although the precise nature of the ecological relationship between model and mimic could either be mutualistic or parasitic depending on how mimic density increases when favoured by selection. Our work formally demonstrates that one does not always need to invoke educational effects to explain why two or more unpalatable species have evolved a similar appearance, or to explain why mimetic similarity among distasteful species is maintained over time. When two species contain high levels of different toxins then they may gain mutual advantage by resembling one another, not only by educating the predator as to their common unprofitability (classical Müllerian mimicry), but also by increasing predator uncertainty as to the specific kind of toxin a prey item contains.