Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Apr 7;269(1492):741–746. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1944

The coevolution of warning signals.

Thomas N Sherratt 1
PMCID: PMC1690947  PMID: 11934367

Abstract

It has long been recognized that defended prey tend to be conspicuous. Current theories suggest that the association ('aposematism') has arisen because predators more readily learn to avoid attacking defended phenotypes when they are conspicuous. In this paper, I consider why such psychology has evolved. In particular, I argue that aposematism may have evolved not because of an independent and pre-existing receiver bias, but because the conspicuousness of a prey item provides a reliable indicator of its likelihood of being defended. To develop my case I consider how warning signals might coevolve in a system containing a number of predators, whose foraging behaviour is also subject to selection. In these cases, models readily show that the greater the conspicuousness of a novel prey item, the more likely that it has been encountered by other predators and survived. As a consequence, naive predators should be less likely to attack highly conspicuous novel prey on encounter, or at least more inclined to attack them cautiously. This adaptive predator behaviour will greatly facilitate the spread of aposematic phenotypes from extreme rarity, which in turn will enhance selection for forms of predator behaviour under which aposematism will coevolve even more readily.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (168.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Archetti M. The origin of autumn colours by coevolution. J Theor Biol. 2000 Aug 21;205(4):625–630. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brower L. P., Glazier S. C. Localization of heart poisons in the monarch butterfly. Science. 1975 Apr 4;188(4183):19–25. doi: 10.1126/science.188.4183.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gamberale G., Tullberg B. S. Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Oct 22;263(1375):1329–1334. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lindström L., Alatalo R. V., Lyytinen A., Mappes J. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 22;268(1465):357–361. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rowe C, Guilford T. Novelty effects in a multimodal warning signal. Anim Behav. 1999 Feb;57(2):341–346. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Servedio M. R. The effects of predator learning, forgetting, and recognition errors on the evolution of warning coloration. Evolution. 2000 Jun;54(3):751–763. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00077.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Speed MP. Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory. Anim Behav. 2000 Sep;60(3):269–278. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Speed Michael P. Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism? Anim Behav. 2001 Jan;61(1):205–216. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES