Aposematism

Last updated

The bright colours of this granular poison frog signal a warning to predators of its toxicity. Korreldragende-gifkikker-3.jpg
The bright colours of this granular poison frog signal a warning to predators of its toxicity.
The honey badger's reverse countershading makes it conspicuous, honestly signalling its ability to defend itself through its aggressive temperament and its sharp teeth and claws. Honey badger.jpg
The honey badger's reverse countershading makes it conspicuous, honestly signalling its ability to defend itself through its aggressive temperament and its sharp teeth and claws.

Aposematism is the advertising by an animal, whether terrestrial or marine, to potential predators that it is not worth attacking or eating. [1] This unprofitability may consist of any defenses which make the prey difficult to kill and eat, such as toxicity, venom, foul taste or smell, sharp spines, or aggressive nature. These advertising signals may take the form of conspicuous coloration, sounds, odours, [2] or other perceivable characteristics. Aposematic signals are beneficial for both predator and prey, since both avoid potential harm.

Contents

The term was coined in 1877 by Edward Bagnall Poulton [3] [4] for Alfred Russel Wallace's concept of warning coloration. [5] Aposematism is exploited in Müllerian mimicry, where species with strong defences evolve to resemble one another. By mimicking similarly coloured species, the warning signal to predators is shared, causing them to learn more quickly at less of a cost.

A genuine aposematic signal that a species actually possesses chemical or physical defences is not the only way to deter predators. In Batesian mimicry, a mimicking species resembles an aposematic model closely enough to share the protection, while many species have bluffing deimatic displays which may startle a predator long enough to enable an otherwise undefended prey to escape.

Etymology

The term aposematism was coined by the English zoologist Edward Bagnall Poulton in his 1890 book The Colours of Animals . He based the term on the Ancient Greek words ἀπό apo 'away' and σῆμα sēma 'sign', referring to signs that warn other animals away. [3] [4]

Defense mechanism

Flamboyant cuttlefish colours warn of toxicity Metasepia pfefferi 1.jpg
Flamboyant cuttlefish colours warn of toxicity

The function of aposematism is to prevent attack, by warning potential predators that the prey animal has defenses such as being unpalatable or poisonous. The easily detected warning is a primary defense mechanism, and the non-visible defenses are secondary. [6] Aposematic signals are primarily visual, using bright colors and high-contrast patterns such as stripes. Warning signals are honest indications of noxious prey, because conspicuousness evolves in tandem with noxiousness. [7] Thus, the brighter and more conspicuous the organism, the more toxic it usually is. [7] [8] This is in contrast to deimatic displays, which attempt to startle a predator with a threatening appearance but which are bluffing, unsupported by any strong defences. [9]

The most common and effective colors are red, yellow, black, and white. [10] These colors provide strong contrast with green foliage, resist changes in shadow and lighting, are highly chromatic, and provide distance dependent camouflage. [10] Some forms of warning coloration provide this distance dependent camouflage by having an effective pattern and color combination that do not allow for easy detection by a predator from a distance, but are warning-like from a close proximity, allowing for an advantageous balance between camouflage and aposematism. [11] Warning coloration evolves in response to background, light conditions, and predator vision. [12] Visible signals may be accompanied by odors, sounds or behavior to provide a multi-modal signal which is more effectively detected by predators. [13]

Hycleus lugens, an aposematically coloured beetle Hycleus lugens, Meloidae.jpg
Hycleus lugens, an aposematically coloured beetle

Unpalatability, broadly understood, can be created in a variety of ways. Some insects such as the ladybird or tiger moth contain bitter-tasting chemicals, [14] while the skunk produces a noxious odor, and the poison glands of the poison dart frog, the sting of a velvet ant or neurotoxin in a black widow spider make them dangerous or painful to attack. Tiger moths advertise their unpalatability by either producing ultrasonic noises which warn bats to avoid them, [14] or by warning postures which expose brightly coloured body parts (see Unkenreflex), or exposing eyespots. Velvet ants (actually parasitic wasps) such as Dasymutilla occidentalis both have bright colors and produce audible noises when grabbed (via stridulation), which serve to reinforce the warning. [15] Among mammals, predators can be dissuaded when a smaller animal is aggressive and able to defend itself, as for example in honey badgers. [16]

Prevalence

In terrestrial ecosystems

Skunk, Mephitis mephitis, advertising its powerful defences, scent glands near the tail, by raising its tail and displaying its warning coloration Skunk about to spray.jpg
Skunk, Mephitis mephitis , advertising its powerful defences, scent glands near the tail, by raising its tail and displaying its warning coloration

Aposematism is widespread in insects, but less so in vertebrates, being mostly confined to a smaller number of reptile, amphibian, and fish species, and some foul-smelling or aggressive mammals. Pitohuis, red and black birds whose toxic feathers and skin apparently comes from the poisonous beetles they ingest, could be included. [17] It has been proposed that aposematism played a role in human evolution, body odour carrying a warning to predators of large hominins able to defend themselves with weapons. [18]

Perhaps the most numerous aposematic vertebrates are the poison dart frogs (family: Dendrobatidae). [19] These neotropical anuran amphibians exhibit a wide spectrum of coloration and toxicity. [20] Some species in this poison frog family (particularly Dendrobates , Epipedobates , and Phyllobates ) are conspicuously coloured and sequester one of the most toxic alkaloids among all living species. [21] [22] Within the same family, there are also cryptic frogs (such as Colostethus and Mannophryne ) that lack these toxic alkaloids. [23] [24] Although these frogs display an extensive array of coloration and toxicity, there is very little genetic difference between the species. [20] Evolution of their conspicuous coloration is correlated to traits such as chemical defense, dietary specialization, acoustic diversification, and increased body mass. [25] [22]

Some plants are thought to employ aposematism to warn herbivores of unpalatable chemicals or physical defences such as prickled leaves or thorns. [26] Many insects, such as cinnabar moth caterpillars, acquire toxic chemicals from their host plants. [27] Among mammals, skunks and zorillas advertise their foul-smelling chemical defences with sharply contrasting black-and-white patterns on their fur, while the similarly-patterned badger and honey badger advertise their sharp claws, powerful jaws, and aggressive natures. [28] Some brightly coloured birds such as passerines with contrasting patterns may also be aposematic, at least in females; but since male birds are often brightly coloured through sexual selection, and their coloration is not correlated with edibility, it is unclear whether aposematism is significant. [29]

The sound-producing rattle of rattlesnakes is an acoustic form of aposematism. [30] Sound production by the caterpillar of the Polyphemus moth, Antheraea polyphemus , may similarly be acoustic aposematism, connected to and preceded by chemical defences. [31] Similar acoustic defences exist in a range of Bombycoidea caterpillars. [32]

In marine ecosystems

Phyllidia.jpg
There is evidence that a range of marine animals, including nudibranchs like Phyllidia varicosa , are aposematic.
Crown of Thorns-jonhanson.jpg
Conspicuous colours of crown-of-thorns starfish spines may warn of strong toxins within. [33] [34]

The existence of aposematism in marine ecosystems has been debated. [35] Many marine organisms, particularly those on coral reefs, are brightly coloured or patterned, including sponges, corals, molluscs, and fish, with little or no connection to chemical or physical defenses. Caribbean reef sponges are brightly coloured, and many species are full of toxic chemicals, but there is no statistical relationship between the two factors. [36]

Nudibranch molluscs are the most commonly cited examples of aposematism in marine ecosystems, but the evidence for this has been contested, [37] mostly because (1) there are few examples of mimicry among species, (2) many species are nocturnal or cryptic, and (3) bright colours at the red end of the colour spectrum are rapidly attenuated as a function of water depth. For example, the Spanish Dancer nudibranch (genus Hexabranchus ), among the largest of tropical marine slugs, potently chemically defended, and brilliantly red and white, is nocturnal and has no known mimics. [38]

Mimicry is to be expected as Batesian mimics with weak defences can gain a measure of protection from their resemblance to aposematic species. [39] Other studies have concluded that nudibranchs such as the slugs of the family Phyllidiidae from Indo-Pacific coral reefs are aposematically coloured. [40] Müllerian mimicry has been implicated in the coloration of some Mediterranean nudibranchs, all of which derive defensive chemicals from their sponge diet. [41]

Iridescent blue rings on the mantles of the venomous octopus Hapalochlaena lunulata are considered by some to be aposematic. Variable ring patterns on mantles of the blue-ringed octopus Hapalochlaena lunulata.png
Iridescent blue rings on the mantles of the venomous octopus Hapalochlaena lunulata are considered by some to be aposematic.

The crown-of-thorns starfish, like other starfish such as Metrodira subulata , has conspicuous coloration and conspicuous long, sharp spines, as well as cytolytic saponins, chemicals which could function as an effective defence; this evidence is argued to be sufficient for such species to be considered aposematic. [33] [34]

The pink warty sea cucumber, Cercodemas anceps, provides both chromatic and achromatic signals to predators, and both of these independently have an aposematic effect. Cercodemas anceps Red box sea cucumber PC260152.JPG
The pink warty sea cucumber, Cercodemas anceps, provides both chromatic and achromatic signals to predators, and both of these independently have an aposematic effect.

It has been proposed that aposematism and mimicry is less evident in marine invertebrates than terrestrial insects because predation is a more intense selective force for many insects, which disperse as adults rather than as larvae and have much shorter generation times. [35] Further, there is evidence that fish predators such as blueheads may adapt to visual cues more rapidly than do birds, making aposematism less effective. [43] However, there is experimental evidence that pink warty sea cucumbers are aposematic, and that the chromatic and achromatic signals that they provide to predators both independently reduce the rate of attack. [42]

Blue-ringed octopuses are venomous. They spend much of their time hiding in crevices whilst displaying effective camouflage patterns with their dermal chromatophore cells. However, if they are provoked, they quickly change colour, becoming bright yellow with each of the 50-60 rings flashing bright iridescent blue within a third of a second. [44] It is often stated this is an aposematic warning display, [45] [46] [47] [48] but the hypothesis has rarely if ever been tested. [49]

Behaviour

The mechanism of defence relies on the memory of the would-be predator; a bird that has once experienced a foul-tasting grasshopper will endeavor to avoid a repetition of the experience. As a consequence, aposematic species are often gregarious. Before the memory of a bad experience attenuates, the predator may have the experience reinforced through repetition. Aposematic organisms are often slow-moving, as they have little need for speed and agility. Instead, their morphology is frequently tough and resistant to injury, thereby allowing them to escape once the predator is warned off. [50]

Aposematic species do not need to hide or stay still as cryptic organisms do, so aposematic individuals benefit from more freedom in exposed areas and can spend more time foraging, allowing them to find more and better quality food. [51] They may make use of conspicuous mating displays, including vocal signals, which may then develop through sexual selection. [52] [22]

Origins of the theory

Gregarious nymphs of an aposematic milkweed bug, Lygaeus kalmii Lygeaus kalmii nymphs.jpg
Gregarious nymphs of an aposematic milkweed bug, Lygaeus kalmii

Wallace, 1867

In a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace dated 23 February 1867, Charles Darwin wrote, "On Monday evening I called on Bates & put a difficulty before him, which he could not answer, & as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion was, 'you had better ask Wallace'. My difficulty is, why are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully & artistically coloured?" [53] Darwin was puzzled because his theory of sexual selection (where females choose their mates based on how attractive they are) could not apply to caterpillars since they are immature and hence not sexually active.

Wallace replied the next day with the suggestion that since some caterpillars "...are protected by a disagreeable taste or odour, it would be a positive advantage to them never to be mistaken for any of the palatable catterpillars [sic], because a slight wound such as would be caused by a peck of a bird's bill almost always I believe kills a growing catterpillar. Any gaudy & conspicuous colour therefore, that would plainly distinguish them from the brown & green eatable catterpillars, would enable birds to recognise them easily as at a kind not fit for food, & thus they would escape seizure which is as bad as being eaten." [54]

Since Darwin was enthusiastic about the idea, Wallace asked the Entomological Society of London to test the hypothesis. [55] In response, the entomologist John Jenner Weir conducted experiments with caterpillars and birds in his aviary, and in 1869 he provided the first experimental evidence for warning coloration in animals. [56] The evolution of aposematism surprised 19th-century naturalists because the probability of its establishment in a population was presumed to be low, since a conspicuous signal suggested a higher chance of predation. [57]

Poulton, 1890

First edition of Edward Bagnall Poulton's The Colours of Animals, 1890, introduced a set of new terms for animal coloration including "aposematic". The Colours of Animals Classified According to Their Uses from Poulton 1890 (first use of Aposematic).jpg
First edition of Edward Bagnall Poulton's The Colours of Animals , 1890, introduced a set of new terms for animal coloration including "aposematic".

Wallace coined the term "warning colours" in an article about animal coloration in 1877. [5] In 1890 Edward Bagnall Poulton renamed the concept aposematism in his book The Colours of Animals . [4] He described the derivation of the term as follows:

The second head (Sematic Colours) includes Warning Colours and Recognition Markings: the former warn an enemy off, and are therefore called Aposematic [Greek, apo, from, and sema, sign] [58]

Evolution

Aposematism is paradoxical in evolutionary terms, as it makes individuals conspicuous to predators, so they may be killed and the trait eliminated before predators learn to avoid it. [59] If warning coloration puts the first few individuals at such a strong disadvantage, it would never last in the species long enough to become beneficial. [60]

Supported explanations

There is evidence for explanations involving dietary conservatism, in which predators avoid new prey because it is an unknown quantity; [61] this is a long-lasting effect. [61] [62] [63] Dietary conservatism has been demonstrated experimentally in some species of birds and fish. [64] [61] [63] [65]

Further, birds recall and avoid objects that are both conspicuous and foul-tasting longer than objects that are equally foul-tasting but cryptically coloured. [66] This suggests that Wallace's original view, that warning coloration helped to teach predators to avoid prey thus coloured, was correct. [67] However, some birds (inexperienced starlings and domestic chicks) also innately avoid conspicuously coloured objects, as demonstrated using mealworms painted yellow and black to resemble wasps, with dull green controls. This implies that warning coloration works at least in part by stimulating the evolution of predators to encode the meaning of the warning signal, rather than by requiring each new generation to learn the signal's meaning. [67] All of these results contradict the idea that novel, brightly coloured individuals would be more likely to be eaten or attacked by predators. [61] [68]

Alternative hypotheses

Other explanations are possible. Predators might innately fear unfamiliar forms (neophobia) [69] long enough for them to become established, but this is likely to be only temporary. [60] [69] [70]

Alternatively, prey animals might be sufficiently gregarious to form clusters tight enough to enhance the warning signal. If the species was already unpalatable, predators might learn to avoid the cluster, protecting gregarious individuals with the new aposematic trait. [71] [72] Gregariousness would assist predators to learn to avoid unpalatable, gregarious prey. [73] Aposematism could also be favoured in dense populations even if these are not gregarious. [61] [69]

Another possibility is that a gene for aposematism might be recessive and located on the X chromosome. [74] If so, predators would learn to associate the colour with unpalatability from males with the trait, while heterozygous females carry the trait until it becomes common and predators understand the signal. [74] Well-fed predators might also ignore aposematic morphs, preferring other prey species. [60] [75]

A further explanation is that females might prefer brighter males, so sexual selection could result in aposematic males having higher reproductive success than non-aposematic males if they can survive long enough to mate. Sexual selection is strong enough to allow seemingly maladaptive traits to persist despite other factors working against the trait. [19]

Once aposematic individuals reach a certain threshold population, for whatever reason, the predator learning process would be spread out over a larger number of individuals and therefore is less likely to wipe out the trait for warning coloration completely. [76] If the population of aposematic individuals all originated from the same few individuals, the predator learning process would result in a stronger warning signal for surviving kin, resulting in higher inclusive fitness for the dead or injured individuals through kin selection. [77]

A theory for the evolution of aposematism posits that it arises by reciprocal selection between predators and prey, where distinctive features in prey, which could be visual or chemical, are selected by non-discriminating predators, and where, concurrently, avoidance of distinctive prey is selected by predators. Concurrent reciprocal selection (CRS) may entail learning by predators or it may give rise to unlearned avoidances by them. Aposematism arising by CRS operates without special conditions of the gregariousness or the relatedness of prey, and it is not contingent upon predator sampling of prey to learn that aposematic cues are associated with unpalatability or other unprofitable features. [78]

Mimicry

Aposematism is a sufficiently successful strategy to have had significant effects on the evolution of both aposematic and non-aposematic species.

Non-aposematic species have often evolved to mimic the conspicuous markings of their aposematic counterparts. For example, the hornet moth is a deceptive mimic of the yellowjacket wasp; it resembles the wasp, but has no sting. A predator which avoids the wasp will to some degree also avoid the moth. This is known as Batesian mimicry, after Henry Walter Bates, a British naturalist who studied Amazonian butterflies in the second half of the 19th century. [79] Another example of Batesian mimicry is with the American carrion beetle, which mimics yellow and black coloration of the cuckoo bumble bee, Psithyrus ashtoni. [80] Batesian mimicry is frequency dependent: it is most effective when the ratio of mimic to model is low; otherwise, predators will encounter the mimic too often. [81] [82]

A second form of mimicry occurs when two aposematic organisms share the same anti-predator adaptation and non-deceptively mimic each other, to the benefit of both species, since fewer individuals of either species need to be attacked for predators to learn to avoid both of them. This form of mimicry is known as Müllerian mimicry, after Fritz Müller, a German naturalist who studied the phenomenon in the Amazon in the late 19th century. [83] [84]

Many species of bee and wasp that occur together are Müllerian mimics. Their similar coloration teaches predators that a striped pattern is associated with being stung. Therefore, a predator which has had a negative experience with any such species will likely avoid any that resemble it in the future. Müllerian mimicry is found in vertebrates such as the mimic poison frog ( Ranitomeya imitator ) which has several morphs throughout its natural geographical range, each of which looks very similar to a different species of poison frog which lives in that area. [85]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mimicry</span> Imitation of another species for selective advantage

In evolutionary biology, mimicry is an evolved resemblance between an organism and another object, often an organism of another species. Mimicry may evolve between different species, or between individuals of the same species. Often, mimicry functions to protect a species from predators, making it an anti-predator adaptation. Mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result changes its behaviour in a way that provides a selective advantage to the mimic. The resemblances that evolve in mimicry can be visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, or electric, or combinations of these sensory modalities. Mimicry may be to the advantage of both organisms that share a resemblance, in which case it is a form of mutualism; or mimicry can be to the detriment of one, making it parasitic or competitive. The evolutionary convergence between groups is driven by the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Birds, for example, use sight to identify palatable insects and butterflies, whilst avoiding the noxious ones. Over time, palatable insects may evolve to resemble noxious ones, making them mimics and the noxious ones models. In the case of mutualism, sometimes both groups are referred to as "co-mimics". It is often thought that models must be more abundant than mimics, but this is not so. Mimicry may involve numerous species; many harmless species such as hoverflies are Batesian mimics of strongly defended species such as wasps, while many such well-defended species form Müllerian mimicry rings, all resembling each other. Mimicry between prey species and their predators often involves three or more species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pitohui</span> Common name for families of bird

The pitohuis are bird species endemic to New Guinea. The onomatopoeic name is thought to be derived from that used by New Guineans from nearby Dorey (Manokwari), but it is also used as the name of a genus Pitohui which was established by the French naturalist René Lesson in 1831. The unitalicized common name however refers to perching birds that belong to several genera of multiple bird families. The genera include Ornorectes, Melanorectes, and Pseudorectes apart from Pitohui.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zygaenidae</span> Family of moths

The Zygaenidae moths are a family of Lepidoptera. The majority of zygaenids are tropical, but they are nevertheless quite well represented in temperate regions. Some of the 1000 or so species are commonly known as burnet or forester moths, often qualified by the number of spots, although other families also have 'foresters'. They are also sometimes called smoky moths.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Poison dart frog</span> Family of amphibians

Poison dart frog is the common name of a group of frogs in the family Dendrobatidae which are native to tropical Central and South America. These species are diurnal and often have brightly colored bodies. This bright coloration is correlated with the toxicity of the species, making them aposematic. Some species of the family Dendrobatidae exhibit extremely bright coloration along with high toxicity — a feature derived from their diet of ants, mites and termites— while species which eat a much larger variety of prey have cryptic coloration with minimal to no amount of observed toxicity. Many species of this family are threatened due to human infrastructure encroaching on their habitats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Batesian mimicry</span> Bluffing imitation of a strongly defended species

Batesian mimicry is a form of mimicry where a harmless species has evolved to imitate the warning signals of a harmful species directed at a predator of them both. It is named after the English naturalist Henry Walter Bates, who worked on butterflies in the rainforests of Brazil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-predator adaptation</span> Defensive feature of prey for selective advantage

Anti-predator adaptations are mechanisms developed through evolution that assist prey organisms in their constant struggle against predators. Throughout the animal kingdom, adaptations have evolved for every stage of this struggle, namely by avoiding detection, warding off attack, fighting back, or escaping when caught.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Müllerian mimicry</span> Mutually beneficial mimicry of strongly defended species

Müllerian mimicry is a natural phenomenon in which two or more well-defended species, often foul-tasting and sharing common predators, have come to mimic each other's honest warning signals, to their mutual benefit. The benefit to Müllerian mimics is that predators only need one unpleasant encounter with one member of a set of Müllerian mimics, and thereafter avoid all similar coloration, whether or not it belongs to the same species as the initial encounter. It is named after the German naturalist Fritz Müller, who first proposed the concept in 1878, supporting his theory with the first mathematical model of frequency-dependent selection, one of the first such models anywhere in biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crypsis</span> Aspect of animal behaviour and morphology

In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an animal or a plant to avoid observation or detection by other animals. It may be a predation strategy or an antipredator adaptation. Methods include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle and mimicry. Crypsis can involve visual, olfactory or auditory concealment. When it is visual, the term cryptic coloration, effectively a synonym for animal camouflage, is sometimes used, but many different methods of camouflage are employed by animals or plants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Automimicry</span> Mimicry of part of own body, e.g. the head

In zoology, automimicry, Browerian mimicry, or intraspecific mimicry, is a form of mimicry in which the same species of animal is imitated. There are two different forms.

<i>Heliconius</i> Genus of brush-footed butterflies

Heliconius comprises a colorful and widespread genus of brush-footed butterflies commonly known as the longwings or heliconians. This genus is distributed throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the New World, from South America as far north as the southern United States. The larvae of these butterflies eat passion flower vines (Passifloraceae). Adults exhibit bright wing color patterns which signal their distastefulness to potential predators.

<i>Oophaga sylvatica</i> Species of amphibian

Oophaga sylvatica, sometimes known as its Spanish name diablito, is a species of frog in the family Dendrobatidae found in Southwestern Colombia and Northwestern Ecuador. Its natural habitat is lowland and submontane rainforest; it can, however, survive in moderately degraded areas, at least in the more humid parts of its range. It is a very common frog in Colombia, but has disappeared from much of its Ecuadorian range. It is threatened by habitat loss (deforestation) and agricultural pollution and sometimes seen in the international pet trade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal coloration</span> General appearance of an animal

Animal colouration is the general appearance of an animal resulting from the reflection or emission of light from its surfaces. Some animals are brightly coloured, while others are hard to see. In some species, such as the peafowl, the male has strong patterns, conspicuous colours and is iridescent, while the female is far less visible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emsleyan mimicry</span> Mimicry of a less deadly species

Emsleyan mimicry, also called Mertensian mimicry, describes an unusual type of mimicry where a deadly prey mimics a less dangerous species.

<i>Arctia plantaginis</i> Species of moth

Arctia plantaginis, the wood tiger, is a moth of the family Erebidae. Several subspecies are found in the Holarctic ecozone south to Anatolia, Transcaucasus, northern Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan. One subspecies is endemic to North America.

<i>Adaptive Coloration in Animals</i> 1940 textbook on camouflage, mimicry and aposematism by Hugh Cott

Adaptive Coloration in Animals is a 500-page textbook about camouflage, warning coloration and mimicry by the Cambridge zoologist Hugh Cott, first published during the Second World War in 1940; the book sold widely and made him famous.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deimatic behaviour</span> Bluffing display of an animal used to startle or scare a predator

Deimatic behaviour or startle display means any pattern of bluffing behaviour in an animal that lacks strong defences, such as suddenly displaying conspicuous eyespots, to scare off or momentarily distract a predator, thus giving the prey animal an opportunity to escape. The term deimatic or dymantic originates from the Greek δειματόω (deimatóo), meaning "to frighten".

The novel world method is a technique used in animal behaviour experiments that address questions on the evolution of warning signals that chemically defended prey use to deter predators, and also on warning signal mimicry.

Deception in animals is the transmission of misinformation by one animal to another, of the same or different species, in a way that propagates beliefs that are not true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coloration evidence for natural selection</span> Early evidence for Darwinism from animal coloration

Animal coloration provided important early evidence for evolution by natural selection, at a time when little direct evidence was available. Three major functions of coloration were discovered in the second half of the 19th century, and subsequently used as evidence of selection: camouflage ; mimicry, both Batesian and Müllerian; and aposematism.

In evolutionary biology, mimicry in vertebrates is mimicry by a vertebrate of some model, deceiving some other animal, the dupe. Mimicry differs from camouflage as it is meant to be seen, while animals use camouflage to remain hidden. Visual, olfactory, auditory, biochemical, and behavioral modalities of mimicry have been documented in vertebrates.

References

  1. ↑ Santos, J. C.; Coloma, Luis A.; Cannatella, D. C. (2003). "Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (22): 12792–12797. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2133521100 . PMC   240697 . PMID   14555763.
  2. ↑ Eisner, T.; Grant, R. P. (1981). "Toxicity, Odor Aversion, and 'Olfactory Aposematism'". Science . 213 (4506): 476. Bibcode:1981Sci...213..476E. doi: 10.1126/science.7244647 . PMID   7244647.
  3. 1 2 Poulton 1890, pp. Foldout "The Colours of Animals Classified According to Their Uses", after page 339.
  4. 1 2 3 Marek, Paul. "Aposematism". Apheloria. Archived from the original on 8 July 2017. Retrieved November 24, 2012.
  5. 1 2 Wallace, Alfred Russel (1877). "The Colours of Animals and Plants. I.—The Colours of Animals". Macmillan's Magazine . 36 (215): 384–408.
  6. ↑ Ruxton, Sherratt & Speed 2004, pp. 82–103.
  7. 1 2 Maan, M. E.; Cummings, M. E. (2012). "Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators". American Naturalist. 179 (1): E1–E14. doi:10.1086/663197. hdl: 2152/31175 . JSTOR   663197. PMID   22173468. S2CID   1963316.
  8. ↑ Blount, Jonathan D.; Speed, Michael P.; Ruxton, Graeme D.; et al. (2009). "Warning displays may function as honest signals of toxicity". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 276 (1658): 871–877. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1407. PMC   2664363 . PMID   19019790.
  9. ↑ Sendova-Franks, Ana; Scott, Michelle Pellissier (2015). "Featured Articles in This Month's Animal Behaviour". Animal Behaviour. 100: iii–v. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.12.013. S2CID   53202282.
  10. 1 2 Stevens, M.; Ruxton, G. D. (2012). "Linking the evolution and form of warning coloration in nature". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1728): 417–426. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1932. PMC   3234570 . PMID   22113031.
  11. ↑ Tullberg, B. S.; Merilaita S.; Wiklund, C. (2005). "Aposematism and Crypsis Combined as a Result of Distance Dependence: Functional Versatility of the Colour Pattern in the Swallowtail Butterfly Larva". Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 272 (1570): 1315–1321. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3079. PMC   1560331 . PMID   16006332.
  12. ↑ Wang, I. J.; Shaffer, H. B. (2008). "Rapid color evolution in an aposematic species: A phylogenetic analysis of colour variation in the strikingly polymorphic strawberry poison-dart frog". Evolution . 62 (11): 2742–2759. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00507.x . PMID   18764916.
  13. ↑ MacAuslane, Heather J. (2008). "Aposematism". In Capinera (ed.). Encyclopedia Entomologica . Vol. 4. pp. 239–242.
  14. 1 2 Hristov, N. I.; Conner, W. E. (2005). "Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat–tiger moth arms race". Naturwissenschaften . 92 (4): 164–169. Bibcode:2005NW.....92..164H. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0611-7. PMID   15772807. S2CID   18306198.
  15. ↑ Schmidt, J. O.; Blum, M. S. (1977). "Adaptations and Responses of Dasymutilla occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) to Predators". Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 21 (2): 99–111. Bibcode:1977EEApp..21...99S. doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.1977.tb02663.x. S2CID   83847876.
  16. ↑ "Black, White and Stinky: Explaining Coloration in Skunks and Other Boldly Colored Animals". University of Massachusetts Amherst. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 21 March 2016.
  17. ↑ Dumbacher, J. P.; Beehler, B. M.; Spande, T. F.; et al. (1992). "Homobatrachotoxin in the genus Pitohui: chemical defense in birds?". Science . 258 (5083): 799–801. Bibcode:1992Sci...258..799D. doi:10.1126/science.1439786. PMID   1439786.
  18. ↑ Weldon, Paul J. (18 August 2018). "Are we chemically aposematic? Revisiting L. S. B. Leakey's hypothesis on human body odour". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 125 (2): 221–228. doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/bly109 .
  19. 1 2 Maan, M. E.; Cummings, M. E. (2009). "Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106 (45): 19072–19077. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10619072M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903327106 . PMC   2776464 . PMID   19858491.
  20. 1 2 Summers, Kyle; Clough, Mark E. (2001-05-22). "The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae)". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (11): 6227–6232. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.6227S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.101134898 . PMC   33450 . PMID   11353830.
  21. ↑ Santos, Juan C.; Tarvin, Rebecca D.; O'Connell, Lauren A. (2016). "A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance". In Schulte, Bruce A.; Goodwin, Thomas E.; Ferkin, Michael H. (eds.). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 13. Vol. 13. Springer International Publishing. pp. 305–337. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22026-0_21. ISBN   978-3-319-22026-0. S2CID   85845409.
  22. 1 2 3 Santos, Juan C.; Baquero, Margarita; Barrio-Amorós, César; et al. (2014-12-07). "Aposematism increases acoustic diversification and speciation in poison frogs". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1796): 20141761. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1761. PMC   4213648 . PMID   25320164.
  23. ↑ Guillory, Wilson X.; Muell, Morgan R.; Summers, Kyle; et al. (August 2019). "Phylogenomic Reconstruction of the Neotropical Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae) and Their Conservation". Diversity. 11 (8): 126. doi: 10.3390/d11080126 . hdl: 10342/8273 .
  24. ↑ "Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2017-11-11.
  25. ↑ Santos, Juan C.; Cannatella, David C. (2011-04-12). "Phenotypic integration emerges from aposematism and scale in poison frogs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (15): 6175–6180. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.6175S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010952108 . PMC   3076872 . PMID   21444790.
  26. ↑ Rubino, Darrin L.; McCarthy, Brian C. "Presence of Aposematic (Warning) Coloration in Vascular Plants of Southeastern Ohio" Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, Vol. 131, No. 3 (Jul-Sep 2004), pp. 252-256. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4126955
  27. ↑ Edmunds 1974, pp. 199–201.
  28. ↑ Caro, Tim (2009). "Contrasting coloration in terrestrial mammals". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 364 (1516): 537–548. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0221. PMC   2674080 . PMID   18990666.
  29. ↑ Götmark, Frank (1994). "Are Bright Birds Distasteful? A Re-Analysis of H. B. Cott's Data on the Edibility of Birds". Journal of Avian Biology. 25 (3): 184–197. doi:10.2307/3677074. JSTOR   3677074.
  30. ↑ Meik, Jesse M.; Pires-daSilva, André (10 February 2009). "Evolutionary morphology of the rattlesnake style". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 9 (1): 35. Bibcode:2009BMCEE...9...35M. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-35 . PMC   2645363 . PMID   19208237.
  31. ↑ Brown, Sarah G.; Boettner, George H.; Yack, Jayne E. (15 March 2007). "Clicking caterpillars: acoustic aposematism in Antheraea polyphemus and other Bombycoidea". The Journal of Experimental Biology . 210 (6): 993–1005. doi: 10.1242/jeb.001990 . PMID   17337712.
  32. ↑ Bura, Veronica L.; Kawahara, Akito Y.; Yack, Jayne E. (11 August 2016). "A Comparative Analysis of Sonic Defences in Bombycoidea Caterpillars". Scientific Reports. 6 (1): 31469. Bibcode:2016NatSR...631469B. doi:10.1038/srep31469. PMC   4980592 . PMID   27510510.
  33. 1 2 Shedd, John G. (2006). "Crown of Thorns Sea Star". Shedd Aquarium. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
  34. 1 2 Inbar, Moshe; Lev-Yadun, Simcha (2005). "Conspicuous and aposematic spines in the animal kingdom" (PDF). Naturwissenschaften. 92 (4): 170–172. Bibcode:2005NW.....92..170I. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0608-2. PMID   15761732. S2CID   8525349. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-16. Retrieved 2015-06-21. defensive animal spines are often conspicuous (shape and colour) and should be considered aposematic... Classic examples are the starfishes Acanthaster planci and Metrodira subulata, which have red spines...
  35. 1 2 Pawlik, J. R. (2012). Fattorusso, E.; et al. (eds.). Antipredatory defensive roles of natural products from marine invertebrates. Springer. pp. 677–710.
  36. ↑ Pawlik, J. R.; et al. (1995). "Defenses of Caribbean sponges against predatory reef fish: I. Chemical deterrenc". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 127: 183–194. Bibcode:1995MEPS..127..183P. doi: 10.3354/meps127183 .
  37. ↑ Edmunds, Malcolm (1991). "Does warning coloration occur in nudibranchs?". Malacologia . 32: 241–255.
  38. ↑ Pawlik, J. R.; et al. (1988). "Defensive chemicals of the Spanish Dancer nudibranch, Hexabranchus sanguineus, and its egg ribbons: Macrolides derived from a sponge diet". Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 119 (2): 99–109. doi:10.1016/0022-0981(88)90225-0.
  39. ↑ Pawlik, J. R.; et al. (1988). "Defensive chemicals of the Spanish Dancer nudibranch, Hexabranchus sanguineus, and its egg ribbons: Macrolides derived from a sponge diet". Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 119 (2): 99–109. doi:10.1016/0022-0981(88)90225-0.
  40. ↑ Ritson-Williams, R.; Paul, V. J. (2007). "Marine benthic invertebrates use multimodal cues for defense against reef fish". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 340: 29–39. Bibcode:2007MEPS..340...29R. doi: 10.3354/meps340029 .
  41. ↑ Haber, M.; et al. (2010). "Coloration and defense in the nudibranch gastropod Hypselodoris fontandraui". Biological Bulletin. 218 (2): 181–188. doi:10.1086/BBLv218n2p181. PMID   20413794. S2CID   10948319.
  42. 1 2 Lim, Ayh; Chan, Izw; Carrasco, Lr; Todd, Pa (21 November 2019). "Aposematism in pink warty sea cucumbers: independent effects of chromatic and achromatic cues". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 631: 157–164. doi:10.3354/meps13159. ISSN   0171-8630.
  43. ↑ Miller, A. M.; Pawlik, J. R. (2013). "Do coral reef fish learn to avoid unpalatable prey using visual cues?". Animal Behaviour. 85 (2): 339–347. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.11.002. S2CID   43941481.
  44. ↑ Mäthger, L. M. (2012). "How does the blue-ringed octopus (Hapalochlaena lunulata) flash its blue rings?". The Journal of Experimental Biology . 215 (21). Bell, G. R., Kuzirian, A. M., Allen, J. J. and Hanlon, R. T.: 3752–3757. doi: 10.1242/jeb.076869 . PMID   23053367.
  45. ↑ Williams, B. L. (2011). "Chemical defense in pelagic octopus paralarvae: Tetrodotoxin alone does not protect individual paralarvae of the greater blue-ringed octopus (Hapalochlaena lunulata) from common reef predators". Chemoecology. 21 (3). Lovenburg, V., Huffard, C. L. and Caldwell, R. L.: 131–141. Bibcode:2011Checo..21..131W. doi:10.1007/s00049-011-0075-5. S2CID   9953958.
  46. ↑ Huffard, C. L.; Saarman, N.; Hamilton, H.; Simison, W. B. (2010). "The evolution of conspicuous facultative mimicry in octopuses: an example of secondary adaptation?". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 101 (1): 68–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01484.x .
  47. ↑ Lambert, W. A. (2011). A Review of Blue-ringed Octopus Conservation (Masters thesis). Prescott College.
  48. ↑ Hanlon, R. T.; Messenger, J. B. (1998). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
  49. ↑ Umbers, K. D. (2013). "On the perception, production and function of blue coloration in animals". Journal of Zoology. 289 (4): 229–242. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12001 .
  50. ↑ Speed, M. P.; Brockhurst, M. A.; Ruxton, G. D. (2010). "The dual benefits of aposematism: predator avoidance and enhanced resources collection". Evolution. 64 (6): 1622–1633. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00931.x . PMID   20050915. S2CID   21509940.
  51. ↑ Speed, M. P.; Brockhurst, M. A.; Ruxton, G. D. (2010). "The dual benefits of aposematism: predator avoidance and enhanced resources collection". Evolution. 64 (6): 1622–1633. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00931.x . PMID   20050915. S2CID   21509940.
  52. ↑ Rudh, A.; Rogell, B.; Håstad, O.; et al. (2011). "Rapid population divergence linked with co-variation between coloration and sexual display in strawberry poison frogs". Evolution. 65 (5): 1271–1282. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01210.x. PMID   21166789. S2CID   10785432.
  53. ↑ Darwin, Charles. "Letter from Charles Robert Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace dated 23 February [1867]".
  54. ↑ Wallace, Alfred Russel. "Letter from Alfred Russel Wallace to Charles Robert Darwin dated 24 February [1867]".
  55. ↑ Anon (1867). "Discussion [Wallace's explanation of brilliant colors in caterpillar larvae, and others' comments thereon, presented at the ESL meeting of 4 March 1867]". Journal of Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London: lxxx–lxxxi.
  56. ↑ Slotten, Ross (2004). The Heretic in Darwin's Court:The Life of Alfred Russel Wallace. New York: Columbia University Press. pp.  253–524. ISBN   978-0-231-13010-3.
  57. ↑ Higashi, Masahiko; Yachi, Shigeo (August 1998). "The evolution of warning signals". Nature . 394 (6696): 882–884. Bibcode:1998Natur.394..882Y. doi:10.1038/29751. S2CID   204999972.
  58. ↑ Poulton 1890, pp. 337–338.
  59. ↑ Briolat, Emmanuelle S.; Burdfield-Steel, Emily R.; Paul, Sarah C.; et al. (2019). "Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm?". Biological Reviews . 94 (2): 388–414. doi: 10.1111/brv.12460 . PMC   6446817 . PMID   30152037.
  60. 1 2 3 Mappes, Johanna; Marples, Nicola; Endler, John A. (2005). "The complex business of survival by aposematism". Trends in Ecology and Evolution . 20 (11): 598–603. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.011. PMID   16701442.
  61. 1 2 3 4 5 Thomas, R. J.; Marples, N. M.; Cuthill, Innes C.; et al. (2003). "Dietary conservatism may facilitate the initial evolution of aposematism". Oikos. 101 (3): 548–566. Bibcode:2003Oikos.101..458T. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12061.x.
  62. ↑ Marples, Nicola M.; Kelly, David J.; Thomas, Robert J. (2005). "Perspective: The evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical". Evolution. 59 (5): 933–940. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01032.x . PMID   16136793.
  63. 1 2 Lindstrom, Leena; Altalo, Rauno V.; Lyytinen, Anne; et al. (2001). "Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 268 (1465): 357–361. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1377. PMC   1088614 . PMID   11270431.
  64. ↑ Richards, E. Loys; Thomas, Robert J.; Marples, Nicola M.; et al. (2011). "The expression of dietary conservatism in solitary and shoaling 3-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus". Behavioral Ecology. 22 (4): 738–744. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr047 .
  65. ↑ Richards, E. Loys; Alexander, Lucille G.; Snellgrove, Donna; et al. (February 2014). "Variation in the expression of dietary conservatism within and between fish species". Animal Behaviour. 88: 49–56. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.11.009. S2CID   53174146.
  66. ↑ Siddall, Emma C.; Marples, Nicola M. (2008-01-22). "Better to be bimodal: the interaction of color and odor on learning and memory". Behavioral Ecology . 19 (2): 425–432. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm155 .
  67. 1 2 Roper, Tim J. (9 July 1987). "All things bright and poisonous". New Scientist . Reed Business Information. pp. 50–52.
  68. ↑ Marples, Nicola M.; Kelly, David J.; Thomas, Robert J. (May 2005). "Perspective: The Evolution of Warning Coloration is Not Paradoxical". Evolution . 59 (5): 933–940. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01032.x . PMID   16136793.
  69. 1 2 3 Speed, Michael P. (2001). "Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism?". Animal Behaviour. 61 (1): 205–216. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1558. PMID   11170710. S2CID   13434024.
  70. ↑ Exernova, Alice; Stys, Pavel; Fucikova, Eva; et al. (2007). "Avoidance of aposematic prey in European tits (Paridae): learned or innate?". Behavioral Ecology. 18 (1): 148–156. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arl061 .
  71. ↑ Gamberale, Gabriella; Tullberg, Birgitta S. (1998). "Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 265 (1399): 889–894. doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0374. PMC   1689056 .
  72. ↑ Mappes, Johanna; Alatalo, Rauno V. (1996). "Effects of novelty and gregariousness in survival of aposematic prey". Behavioral Ecology. 8 (2): 174–177. doi: 10.1093/beheco/8.2.174 .
  73. ↑ Ruxton, Graeme D.; Sherratt, Thomas N. (2006). "Aggregation, defense, and warning signals: the evolutionary relationship". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 273 (1600): 2417–2424. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3570. PMC   1634906 . PMID   16959629.
  74. 1 2 Brodie, Edmund D. III; Agrawal, Anell F. (2001). "Maternal effects and the evolution of aposematic signals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 98 (14): 7884–7887. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.7884B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.141075998 . PMC   35437 . PMID   11416165.
  75. ↑ Merilaita, Sami; Kaitala, Veijo (2002). "Community structure and the evolution of aposematic coloration". Ecology Letters . 5 (4): 495–501. Bibcode:2002EcolL...5..495M. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00362.x. S2CID   7188102.
  76. ↑ Lee, T. J.; Marples, N. M.; Speed, M. P. (2010). "Can dietary conservatism explain the primary evolution of aposematism?". Animal Behaviour. 79: 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.004. S2CID   54273453.
  77. ↑ Servedio, M. R. (2000). "The effects of predator learning, forgetting, and recognition errors on the evolution of warning coloration". Evolution. 54 (3): 751–763. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00077.x . PMID   10937250.
  78. ↑ Weldon, P.J. (December 2013). "Chemical aposematism". Chemoecology. 23 (4): 201–202. Bibcode:2013Checo..23..201W. doi:10.1007/s00049-013-0140-3. S2CID   27025142.
  79. ↑ Bates, Henry Walter (1861). "Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae". Transactions of the Linnean Society . 23 (3): 495–566. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1860.tb00146.x.; Reprint: Bates, Henry Walter (1981). "Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley (Lepidoptera: Heliconidae)". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 16 (1): 41–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01842.x .
  80. ↑ Fisher, R. M., & Tuckerman, R. D. (1986). Mimicry of Bumble Bees and Cuckoo Bumble Bees by Carrion Beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 59(1), 20–25.
  81. ↑ Harper, G. R.; Pfennig, D. W (22 August 2007). "Mimicry on the edge: why do mimics vary in resemblance to their model in different parts of their geographical range?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1621): 1955–1961. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0558. PMC   2275182 . PMID   17567563.
  82. ↑ Edmunds 1974, p. 112.
  83. ↑ Müller, Fritz (1878). "Ueber die Vortheile der Mimicry bei Schmetterlingen" [On the advantages of mimicry in butterflies]. Zoologischer Anzeiger (in German). 1: 54–55.
  84. ↑ Müller, Fritz (1879). "Ituna and Thyridia; a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies". Proclamations of the Entomological Society of London. 1879. Translated by R. Meldola: 20–29.
  85. ↑ Twomey, Evan; Brown, Jason (1986). "Ranitomeya imitator". Dendrobates.org. Archived from the original on 25 October 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2015.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.