Hemipteran defensive odors trigger predictable color biases in jumping spider predators

Conspicuous stripes on prey capture attention and reduce attacks by foraging jumping spiders

Many animals avoid predation using aposematic displays that pair toxic/dangerous defences with conspicuous achromatic warning patterns, such as high-contrast stripes. To understand how these prey defences work, we need to understand the decision-making of visual predators. Here we gave two species of jumping spiders (Phidippus regius and Habronattus trimaculatus) choice tests using live termites that had their back patterns manipulated using paper capes (solid white, solid black, striped). For P. regius, black and striped termites were quicker to capture attention. Yet despite this increased attention, striped termites were attacked at lower rates than either white or black. This suggests that the termite's contrast with the background elicits attention, but the internal striped body patterning reduces attacks. Results from tests with H. trimaculatus were qualitatively similar but did not meet the threshold for statistical significance. Additional exploratory analyses suggest that attention to and aversion to stripes is at least partially innate and provide further insight into how decision-making played out during trials. Because of their rich diversity (over 6500 species) that includes variation in natural history, toxin susceptibility and degree of colour vision, jumping spiders are well suited to test broad generalizations about how and why aposematic displays work.

The evolution and ecology of multiple antipredator defences

Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such "defence portfolios" that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies.

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.

Lack of neophobic responses to color in a jumping spider that uses color cues when foraging (Habronattus pyrrithrix)

Chemically defended prey often advertise their toxins with bright and conspicuous colors. To understand why such colors are effective at reducing predation, we need to understand the psychology of key predators. In bird predators, there is evidence that individuals avoid novelty-including prey of novel colors (with which they have had no prior experience). Moreover, the effect of novelty is sometimes strongest for colors that are typically associated with aposematic prey (e.g., red, orange, yellow). Given these findings in the bird literature, color neophobia has been argued to be a driving force in the evolution of aposematism. However, no studies have yet asked whether invertebrate predators respond similarly to novel colors. Here, we tested whether naive lab-raised jumping spiders (Habronattus pyrrithrix) exhibit similar patterns of color neophobia to birds. Using color-manipulated living prey, we first color-exposed spiders to prey of two out of three colors (blue, green, or red), with the third color remaining novel. After this color exposure phase, we gave the spiders tests where they could choose between all three colors (two familiar, one novel). We found that H. pyrrithrix attacked novel and familiar-colored prey at equal rates with no evidence that the degree of neophobia varied by color. Moreover, we found no evidence that either prey novelty nor color (nor their interaction) had an effect on how quickly prey was attacked. We discuss these findings in the context of what is known about color neophobia in other animals and how this contributes to our understanding of aposematic signals.