Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The evolution of locomotory behavior in profitable and unprofitable simulated prey

Abstract

Prey that are unprofitable to attack (for example, those containing noxious chemicals) frequently exhibit slower and more predicable movement than species that lack these defenses. Possible explanations for the phenomenon include a lack of selection pressure on unprofitable prey to avoid predators and active selection on unprofitable prey to advertise their noxiousness. We explicitly tested these and other hypotheses using a novel “artificial world” in which the locomotory characteristics (step size, waiting time, and angular direction) of artificial profitable and unprofitable computer-generated prey were subject to continued selection by humans over a number of generations. Unprofitable prey evolved significantly slower movement behavior than profitable prey when they were readily recognized as unprofitable, and also when they frequently survived predatory attacks. This difference arose primarily as a consequence of more intense selection on profitable prey to avoid capture. When unprofitable prey were very similar (but not identical) in morphological appearance to profitable prey, unprofitable prey evolved particularly slow movement behavior, presumably because when they were slow-moving they could be more readily recognized as being unprofitable. When unprofitable prey were constrained to move slowly, a morphologically identical profitable prey species evolved locomotor mimicry only when it had no more effective means of avoiding predation. Overall, our results provide some of the first empirical support for a number of earlier hypotheses for differences in movement between unprofitable and profitable prey and demonstrate that locomotor mimicry is not an inevitable outcome of selection even in morphologically similar prey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2A, B
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Alatalo RV, Mappes J (1996) Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature 382:708–710

  2. Bates HW (1862) Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans Linn Soc Lond 23:495–566

  3. Chai P (1996) Butterfly visual characteristics and ontogeny of responses to butterflies by a specialized tropical bird. Biol J Linn Soc 59:37–67

  4. Chai P, Srygley RB (1990) Predation and the flight, morphology, and temperature of neotropical rain-forest butterflies. Am Nat 135:748–765

  5. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London

  6. Dill LM (1975) Calculated risk-taking by predators as a factor in Batesian mimicry. Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool 53:1614–1621

  7. Dudley R (1991) Biomechanics of flight in neotropical butterflies: aerodynamic and mechanical power requirements. J Exp Biol 159:335–357

  8. Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: A survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Harlow, Essex

  9. Evans DL, Schmidt JO (1990) Insect defenses: Adaptive mechanisms and strategies of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, Albany

  10. Glanville PW, Allen JA (1997) Protective polymorphism in populations of computer-simulated moth-like prey. Oikos 80:565–571

  11. Golding YC, Ennos AR, Edmunds M (2001) Similarity in flight behavior between the honeybee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and its presumed mimic the dronefly Eristalis tenax (Diptera: Syrphidae). J Exp Biol 204:139–145

  12. Guilford T (1986) How do “warning colours” work? Conspicuousness may reduce recognition errors in experienced predators. Anim Behav 34:286–288

  13. Hatle JD, Faragher SG (1998) Slow movement increases the survivorship of a chemically unprofitable grasshopper in predatory encounters. Oecologia 115:260–267

  14. Hatle JD, Whitman DW (2001) Sluggish movement of aposematic insects as a defense against motion-oriented predators. In: Anathnakrishna TN (ed) Plant and insect defense dynamics. Oxford and IBN Press, New Delhi, pp 210–228

  15. Hatle JD, Salazar BA, Whitman DW (2001) Sluggish movement and repugnant odor are positively interacting insect defensive traits in encounters with frogs. J Insect Behav 14:479–495

  16. Hatle JD, Salazar BA, Whitman DW (2002) Survival advantage of sluggish individuals in aggregations of aposematic prey, during encounters with ambush predators. Evol Ecol 16:415–431

  17. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398

  18. Järvi T, Sillén-Tullberg B, Wiklund C (1981) The cost of being aposematic—an experimental study of predation on larvae of Papilio machaon by the Great Tit Parus major. Oikos 36:267–272

  19. Knill R, Allen JA (1995) Does polymorphism protect? An experiment with human predators. Ethology 99:127–138

  20. Marden JH, Chai P (1991) Aerial predation and butterfly design—how palatability, mimicry, and the need for evasive flight constrain mass allocation. Am Nat 138:15–36

  21. Pasteels JM, Gregoire JC, Rowellrahier M (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 28:263–289

  22. Pinheiro CEG (1996) Palatability and escaping ability in neotropical butterflies: tests with wild kingbirds (Tyrannus melancholicus, Tyrannidae). Biol J Linn Soc 59:351–365

  23. Poulton EB (1890) The colours of animals: their meaning and use especially considered in the case of insects. Keegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, London

  24. Rowe C (2002) Sound improves visual discrimination learning in avian predators. Proc R Soc Lond B269:1353–1357

  25. Sherratt TN (2002) The coevolution of warning signals. Proc R Soc Lond B269:741–746

  26. Sherratt TN, Beatty CD (2003) The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defence. Am Nat (in press)

  27. Srygley RB (1994) Locomotor mimicry in butterflies? The associations of positions of centres of mass among groups of mimetic, unprofitable prey. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B343:145–155

  28. Srygley RB (1999) Incorporating motion into investigations of mimicry. Evol Ecol 13:691–708

  29. Srygley RB, Chai P (1990a) Flight morphology of neotropical butterflies—palatability and distribution of mass to the thorax and abdomen. Oecologia 84:491–499

  30. Srygley RB, Chai P (1990b) Predation and the elevation of thoracic temperature in brightly colored neotropical butterflies. Am Nat 135:766–787

  31. Wallace AR (1867) Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London:Ixxx-Ixxxi

  32. Whitman DW, Blum MS, Jones CG (1985) Chemical defense in Taeniopoda eques (Orthoptera: Acrididae): role of the metathroacic secretion. Ann Entomol Soc Am 78:451–455

  33. Wiklund C, Järvi T (1982) Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naive birds—a reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36:998–1002

  34. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the students of Carleton University for their participation. All volunteers gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. The research was approved by Carleton University Research Ethics Committee and conducted according to the guidelines set out in Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Rebecca Tittler gave helpful statistical advice. We are also very grateful to our referees who made a number of constructive comments that have helped improve the clarity of our manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Thomas N. Sherratt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sherratt, T.N., Rashed, A. & Beatty, C.D. The evolution of locomotory behavior in profitable and unprofitable simulated prey. Oecologia 138, 143–150 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1411-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Aposematism
  • Warning signals
  • Mimicry
  • Movement
  • Locomotion