Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations

Abstract

Understanding the early evolution of aposematic (warning) coloration has been a challenge for scientists, as a new conspicuous morph in a population of cryptic insects would have a high predation risk and would probably die out before local predators learnt to avoid it1,2,3,4. Fisher5 presented the idea of aggregation benefit through the survival of related individuals; however, his theory has been strongly debated6,7,8 as the mechanisms that favour grouping have never been explored experimentally with the incorporation of detectability costs. Here we create a comprehensive ‘novel world’ experiment with the great tit (Parus major) as a predator to explore simultaneously the predation-related benefits and costs for aposematic aggregated prey, manipulating both group size and signal strength. Our results show that grouping would have been highly beneficial for the first aposematic prey individuals surrounded by naive predators, because (1) detectability risk increased only asymptotically with group size; (2) additional detectability costs due to conspicuous signals were marginal in groups; (3) even naive predators deserted the group after detecting unpalatability (dilution effect); and (4) avoidance learning of signal was faster in groups. None of these mechanisms require kin selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Prey assemblages used in the detectability experiment.
Figure 2: Detectability risk of each prey assemblage as the number of attacked prey assemblages in the detectability experiment.
Figure 3: Observed and expected mortality of unpalatable prey as the proportion of unpalatable items from all prey that were eaten.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Endler, J. A. Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 319, 505–523 (1988).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guilford, T. in Insect Defenses. Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators (eds Evans, D. L. & Schmidt, J. O.) 23–61 (State Univ. New York Press, New York, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mallet, J. & Singer, M. C. Individual selection, kin selection, and the shifting balance in the evolution of warning colours: the evidence from butterflies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 32, 337–350 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schuler, W. & Roper, T. J. Responses to warning coloration in avian predators. Adv. Study Behav. 21, 111–146 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarendon, Oxford, 1930).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Alatalo, R. V. & Mappes, J. Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature 382, 708–710 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tullberg, B. S., Leimar, O. & Gamberale-Stille, G. Did aggregation favour the initial evolution of warning coloration? A novel world revisited. Anim. Behav. 59, 281–287 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alatalo, R. V. & Mappes, J. Initial evolution of warning coloration: comments on the novel world method. Anim. Behav. 60, F1–F2 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J., Riipi, M. & Vertainen, L. Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397, 249–251 (1999).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Treisman, M. Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. I. Models for concealment and evasion. Anim. Behav. 23, 779–800 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Turner, G. F. & Pitcher, T. J. Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am. Nat. 128, 228–240 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sillén-Tullberg, B. & Leimar, O. The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. Am. Nat. 132, 723–734 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton, W. D. Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol. 31, 295–311 (1971).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 357–361.

  15. Gagliardo, A. & Guilford, T. Why do warningly-coloured prey live gregariously? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 251, 69–74 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Guilford, T. Is kin selection involved in the evolution of warning coloration? Oikos 45, 31–36 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mallet, J. & Joron, M. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30, 201–233 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B. & Wiklund, C. 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 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sillén-Tullberg, B., Wiklund, C. & Järvi, T. Aposematic coloration in adults and larvae of Lygaeus equestris and its bearing on mullerian mimicry: an experimental study on predation on living bugs by the great tit Parus major. Oikos 39, 131–136 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marples, N. M., van Veelen, W. & Brakefield, P. M. The relative importance of colour, taste and smell in the protection of an aposematic insect Coccinella septempunctata. Anim. Behav. 48, 967–974 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Weismann, A. Studies in the Theory of Descent (Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, 1882).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Nisu, L. Vertainen and the Academic Hobby Crafts Club for their help, and Konnevesi Research Station for the facilities. We also thank A. Chaine, G. Corrigan, A. Kause, R. Leimu, B. Lyon, A. Lyytinen, J. Tuomi and B. Weaver for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This study was supported by the Academy of Finland. Authors after M.R. are in alphabetical order.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marianna Riipi or Johanna Mappes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Riipi, M., Alatalo, R., Lindström, L. et al. Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature 413, 512–514 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35097061

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35097061

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing