ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Theoretical Biology 245 (2007) 268–277 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjtbi

Aposematic signals and the relationship between conspicuousness and distinctiveness

Sami Merilaitaa,Ã, Graeme D. Ruxtonb

aDepartment of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden bDivision of Environmental & Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Received 18 April 2006; received in revised form 3 October 2006; accepted 21 October 2006 Available online 27 October 2006

Abstract

It has long been recognized that prey that invest in toxic or other defenses often advertise these defenses by means of conspicuously coloured signals. One question that remains unanswered is why conspicuousness is such a universal trait of aposematic signals. Conspicuousness may allow more rapid avoidance learning by predators or improved retention of such learning. An alternative or complementary explanation is that defended species should adopt a conspicuous signal of their defence to make them visually distinct from inconspicuous undefended prey. Here, we use a neural network model of prey detection and attack decision making by a predator in combination with evolving, virtual prey to shed light on the relative importance of conspicuousness against the background and distinctiveness from other species as mechanisms underlying aposematic signalling. Our model suggests that prey conspicuousness may result from selection for distinctiveness, but that selection for distinctiveness does not result in maximization of conspicuousness. On the other hand, our model does not justify the exclusion of the possibility that conspicuousness as such may be a beneficial attribute of warning coloration. It is likely that the relative importance of the two selective forces (for conspicuousness and for distinctiveness) will differ on a case-by-case basis, however there is no empirical or logical reason for the current neglect of evolutionary pressure for distinctiveness. Thus, we suggest that description of aposematism as the teaming of a secondary defence with a conspicuous signal may be overly simplistic; we would rather that the signal were described as conspicuous and/or distinctive. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aposematism; Mimicry; Predation; Camouflage; Crypsis

1. Introduction Warning signals have been suggested to have various possible functions, such as promoting detection, discrimi- It has long been recognized that prey that invest in toxic nation or remembrance (Guilford and Dawkins, 1991; or other defenses often advertise these defenses by means of Guilford, 1990a; Ruxton et al., 2004). Conspicuousness conspicuous signals (Wallace, 1867; Darwin, 1871; Cott, may be an important trait for some of these functions (e.g. 1940). Examples of such ‘‘aposematic’’ signals are the Guilford, 1990a, b). Accordingly, experimental studies yellow and black stripes of many wasps and the spotted have shown that predators more effectively learn to avoid patterns of many ladybirds. The evolution of aposematic conspicuous than cryptic prey (Gittleman and Harvey, signals has long been an interesting challenge to evolu- 1980; Roper and Redston, 1987; Lindstro¨m et al., 1999). tionary biologists (summarized in Chapter 8 of Ruxton et This suggests that conspicuousness may benefit aposematic al., 2004). One question that remains unanswered is why prey. On the other hand, it has been suggested that it is the conspicuousness is such a universal trait of aposematic colour and not the contrast between the prey and the signals (Sherratt, 2002; Sherratt and Beatty, 2003). background as such that predators attend when learning to avoid distasteful prey (Gamberale-Stille and Guilford, ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 164034; fax: +46 8 167715. 2003). Moreover, it is not self-evident that maximal E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Merilaita), conspicuousness or detectability of warning signals is [email protected] (G.D. Ruxton). favored by selection, because attracting the attention of

0022-5193/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.10.022 ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Merilaita, G.D. Ruxton / Journal of Theoretical Biology 245 (2007) 268–277 269 predators may simply result in increased predation risk evolution of protective coloration (Merilaita and Tullberg, (e.g. Tullberg et al., 2005). In general, it seems that 2005; Speed and Ruxton, 2005). Therefore, in this study we although there are various hypotheses about conspicuous- will simultaneously investigate the effects of selection for ness of warning signals, there are not very many studies camouflage, mimicry and conspicuousness as well as that have explicitly investigated why conspicuousness is selection against mimetic resemblance on prey appearance. such a universal trait of aposematic signals. More specifically, we aim to shed light on the relative Conspicuousness of warning signals is easy to under- importance of conspicuousness against the background stand if there is direct benefit from it. However, there may and distinctiveness from other species as mechanisms also be other explanations to conspicuousness, and it is underlying aposematic signalling. We use an essentially possible that an increased contrast between the prey similar scenario to Sherratt and Beatty (2003). They coloration and its background has resulted as a by-product studied how the coloration of two virtual prey species, from selection for characteristics of coloration other than defended or undefended, evolved. Sherratt and Beatty conspicuousness. According to an alternative explanation (2003) drew the interesting conclusion that ‘‘the most for the common adoption of conspicuousness in apose- fundamental reason why defended prey tend to be matic signals, undefended species should seek to be as conspicuous is because it sets them apart from undefended inconspicuous as possible, and so defended species should prey’’. It is, however, possible to increase the reality of adopt a conspicuous signal of their defence such that some aspects of the evolutionary process in their model. predators can tell apart defended prey from undefended Accordingly, the main difference in our model is that prey. For example, Fisher stated that ‘‘to be recognized as instead of using only few, pre-determined appearance unpalatable is equivalent to avoiding confusion with phenotypes, which may affect the process (by limiting the palatable species’’ (Fisher, 1930, p. 148). Such a conspic- possible routes through the adaptive landscape) and the uous signal may be resistant to cheating because a result of evolution, we let the prey appearance, described conspicuous undefended individual would open itself up by a multidimensional variable, freely evolve along all the to higher levels of attack by predators, to which it would dimensions of the variable. This yields a more flexible have no defence (Sherratt, 2002; Sherratt and Beatty, representation of the relationship between conspicuousness 2003). In a recent study, Sherratt and Beatty (2003) and distinctiveness. presented a series of experiments and suggested that it is Our model should be viewed as a strategic tool for actually selection for distinctiveness (rather than conspicu- exploring the general concepts of difference from the ousness) that drives the evolution of warning coloration. In background and difference from non-defended prey as the present paper we want, using modelling, to further alternative or complementary mechanisms underlying scrutinize how selection on distinctiveness affects prey aposematism. Our aim is not to mimic the likely course coloration. In particular, we will study the relationship of the evolution of aposematism, only to evaluate the between distinctiveness and conspicuousness. We assume logical plausibility and implications of these distinct that the prey may use cryptic coloration to decrease its mechanisms. As such, our model does not attempt to predation risk. Further, the prey in question may or may describe visual appearance, the genetics underlying appear- not posses a defence, which we also assume may affect the ance or co-evolution between species. Rather, we adopt the optimization of the appearance of its colour pattern in simplest defensible representations of these, so as to allow relation to the coloration patterns of other, defended or clearer identification of the processes of interest. undefended prey that a predator encounters. We use simple artificial neural networks as predators. Artificial neural networks are increasingly being used as 2. Methods models of natural information processing and decision- making systems (e.g. Arak and Enquist, 1995; Ghirlanda 2.1. General assumptions of the model and Enquist, 1998; Merilaita, 2003; Merilaita and Tullberg, 2005) and have the strong advantage over animal (or This model consists of two species of prey, a predator human) model systems that the structure of the system is and a background. Because of morphological similarity entirely under the experimenter’s control, and so we can between the prey species, the predator cannot tell them eliminate concerns that results are artifactual caused by apart if they have identical appearance (involving all unacknowledged special features of a specific model aspects of coloration, patterning and morphology). We are organism. interested in how the appearance of one of the prey species, Here, we use such a predator model in combination with called the focal prey, evolves in relation to the background evolving, virtual prey to simulate simple scenarios related and to the other prey species, called the reference prey. For to the evolution of prey appearance. Although most ease of interpretation, the reference prey has a fixed, previous studies have for practical reasons focused on unchanging appearance. At the beginning of a simulation, one anti-predator strategy at the time, recent studies the two prey species have similar appearance, and we suggest that it is important to consider the costs and describe the outcome of the evolution of appearance of the benefits of all the alternative strategies when studying the focal prey in terms of both conspicuousness (i.e. visual Download English Version: https://daneshyari.com/en/article/4499189

Download Persian Version:

https://daneshyari.com/article/4499189

Daneshyari.com