Abstract

Animals learn to associate sensory cues with the palatability of food in order to avoid bitterness in food (a common sign of toxicity). Associations are important for active foraging predators to avoid unpalatable prey and to invest energy in searching for palatable prey only. However, it has been suggested that sit-and-wait predators might rely on the opportunity that palatable prey approach them by chance: the most efficient strategy could be to catch every available prey and then decide whether to ingest them or not. In the present study, we investigated avoidance learning in a sit-and-wait predator, the praying mantis (Tenodera aridifolia). To examine the effects of conspicuousness and novelty of prey on avoidance learning, we used three different prey species: mealworms (novel prey), honeybees (novel prey with conspicuous signals) and crickets (familiar prey). We sequentially presented the prey species in pairs and made one of them artificially bitter. In the absence of bitterness, the mantises consumed bees and crickets more frequently than mealworms. When the prey were made bitter, the mantises still continued to attack bitter crickets as expected. However, they reduced their attacks on bitter mealworms more than on bitter bees. This contrasts with the fact that conspicuous signals (e.g. coloration in bees) facilitate avoidance learning in active foraging predators. Surprisingly, we found that the bitter bees were totally rejected after an attack whereas bitter mealworms were partially eaten (~35%). Our results highlight the fact that the mantises might maintain a selection pressure on bees, and perhaps on aposematic species in general.

Highlights

  • Animals learn to associate sensory cues with the palatability of food in order to avoid bitterness in food

  • Instead our results showed that visual conspicuousness did not improve avoidance learning in the mantis when the prey were made bitter, and that visual conspicuousness facilitates attacks in praying mantis

  • The amount of prey attacked did not vary over time: the number of mealworms, crickets and bees that were attacked stayed constant across the days, as well as the number of prey eaten (GEEs; for all values, χ22 < 2.82, P > 0.05)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Animals learn to associate sensory cues with the palatability of food in order to avoid bitterness in food (a common sign of toxicity). Predators have to ingest sufficient nutrients to fulfill their energy requirements, they have to avoid harmful prey and the ingestion of toxins that induce malaise and vomiting, and may lead to death To this end, animals discriminate between different tastes (for reviews Rogers and Newland 2003; Yarmolinsky et al 2009), and innately reject and avoid bitter tasting foods (Glendinning 1994). Active foragers spend time and energy searching for prey and quickly decide to leave sites where the probability of finding food is low (Krebs et al 1974; Brown 1988) to switch to sites where food is more abundant (see Pyke 1984) In this kind of strategy, efficiency in searching for prey is important for saving energy and facilitated by using distant cues. Sit-and-wait predators seem to exhibit distinct behaviours and cognitive processes compared to active foragers, yet relatively little is known about these processes (but see Prudic et al 2007)

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