Abstract

Allocation to different components of defence has been suggested as an explanation for the existence of multiple aposematic morphs in a single population. We tested whether there are trade-offs between warning colouration and chemical defence or whether these have an additive effect when combined, using blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) as predators and the polymorphic wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis) as prey. We used artificial edible models (with and without the moths’ defensive fluids) with paper wings whose colour and pattern properties matched those of real moths. When the models were presented sans defensive fluids or when the fluids were presented without colour cues, we detected no differences in initial avoidance between the two morphs. However, when the colour and chemical cues were combined, differences emerged. White wings elicited higher latency to approach regardless of the defensive fluids applied on them. After approach, however, the defensive fluids of both morphs presented on moth models elicited higher latency to attack than a water control, hinting at a repellent odour. Fluids of white moths rendered lower amounts of prey eaten regardless of wing colour, while yellow moths’ fluids provoked the highest occurrence of beak wiping behaviour. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for interactive effects between different signal modalities, as these can create patterns not detectable when examined in isolation. Understanding these interactions is vital to determine how different components of multimodal warning displays provide protection at different stages of a predation event and, potentially, how multiple morphs can co-occur in a population.Significance statementThere are many things that can stop a predator attacking a prey such as looking scary or smelling bad, but if a predator does take a bite, tasting bad can make the difference between life and death for the prey. When combined with bright conspicuous colours, both repellent odours and deterrent tastes (i.e. chemical defences) can help predators learn to avoid unprofitable prey. However, it is unclear whether it is really the sum of these visual and chemical signals that most effectively deters predators or whether one is more important than the other. Examining the effects of warning colour and chemical defence in white and yellow wood tiger moths on wild-caught birds, we show that neither aspect of the moths’ defence in isolation is as effective for predator deterrence as the sum of both.

Highlights

  • Aposematic organisms combine, often highly conspicuous, warning signals with secondary defences that warn predators about their unprofitability (Poulton 1890)

  • Examining the effects of warning colour and chemical defence in white and yellow wood tiger moths on wild-caught birds, we show that neither aspect of the moths’ defence in isolation is as effective for predator deterrence as the sum of both

  • It seems likely that this effect is being driven by those models coated with defensive fluids of either morph, as when analysed separately, birds did not differ in their latency to approach yellow and white models coated with just water

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Aposematic organisms combine, often highly conspicuous, warning (visual) signals with secondary defences that warn predators about their unprofitability (Poulton 1890). These secondary defences can be behavioural, morphological or, most commonly, chemical (Ruxton et al 2004) and exploit different sensory channels than the visual signals in the receivers (i.e. predators). For example, that highly unprofitable prey can afford to exhibit less efficient warning signals because they can survive predator attacks without incurring the costs of a more conspicuous visual signal (Leimar et al 1986; Speed and Ruxton 2005). Species exhibiting variation in more than one component (e.g. visual and chemical) of the multimodal warning display are ideal to investigate the possible adaptive value of each signal on its own, versus that of the interaction between the two, in predator deterrence

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.