Abstract

The degree of similarity between Batesian mimics and their models varies widely and occurs across a range of sensory modalities. We use three complementary experimental paradigms to investigate acoustic mimicry in hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) which mimic stinging Hymenoptera. First, we analyse sounds made by 13 hoverfly species and 9 Hymenoptera species with and without simulated predation (“alarm” and “flight” sounds, respectively). We demonstrate that the bumblebees Bombus terrestris, B. hortorum, and B. lucorum, and the hoverfly Cheilosia illustrata exhibit alarm sounds that are significantly different to their respective flight sounds, and indistinguishable between species. We then demonstrate that the B. terrestris alarm sound reduces predation on artificial prey by wild birds, but that the hoverfly mimic alarm sound does not. Finally, we trained chicks to avoid distasteful food in the presence of different acoustic stimuli. Overall the chicks showed no difference in response to bee and hoverfly stimuli, demonstrating no innate aversion to the Bombus alarm sound. We therefore conclude that (i) similarity of acoustic signals exists among Hymenoptera and hoverflies, (ii) acoustic aposematic signals (but not the almost identical mimetic signals) are effective at reducing predation, and (iii) wild birds exhibit learned rather than innate aversion to certain acoustic stimuli.

Highlights

  • Aposematic insects advertise their defences to predators by presenting conspicuous warning displays (Poulton, 1890) and these displays can involve one or more sensory modalities

  • This study presents three complementary experiments: (i) a comparative analysis of the presence of acoustic mimicry demonstrating the mimetic links between several Bombus species and a subset of Syrphidae

  • L. lucorum are Batesian acoustic mimics of the Bombus group; (ii) a field based predation experiment under ecologically-relevant conditions that demonstrates a benefit to the aposematic signal using naturally-foraging birds but not for the acoustically-similar mimetic signal produced by a hoverfly; and (iii) a tightly-controlled laboratory study using a model avian visual system to demonstrate that there is a general aversion to sound but no innate avoidance of the Bombus alarm sound

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Aposematic insects advertise their defences to predators by presenting conspicuous warning displays (Poulton, 1890) and these displays can involve one or more sensory modalities. Benefits to prey may be indirect, as aposematic signals serve to educate predators by forming an association between a strong sensory stimulus and a negative outcome (bad taste, sickness) such that the predator avoids similar prey individuals in the future (Gittleman and Harvey, 1980; Harvey and Greenwood, 1978). These honest signals can be hijacked by mimics that reap the benefits of the predator’s learned aversion to a given signal without having to pay the cost of producing the defence to which it is linked. If there is such a clear benefit to close resemblance to an aposematic species the question remains: why are there no perfect mimics?

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call