title: Aposematism: what should our starting point be?
abstract: The evolution of aposematism is considered to be a major evolutionary problem because if new aposematic forms emerged in defended cryptic populations, they would face the dual problems of rarity and conspicuousness. We argue that this commonly assumed starting point might not have wide validity. We describe a novel evolutionary computer model in which prey evolve secondary defences and become conspicuous by moving widely over a visually heterogeneous habitat. Unless crypsis imposes high opportunity costs (for instance, preventing prey from efficient foraging, thermoregulation and communication), costly secondary defences are not predicted to evolve at all. However, when crypsis imposes opportunity costs, prey evolve secondary defences that facilitate raised behavioural conspicuousness as prey exploit opportunities within their environment. Optimal levels of secondary defence and of behavioural conspicuousness increase with population sizes and the costs imposed by crypsis. When prey are already conspicuous by virtue of their behaviours, the evolution of aposematic appearances (bright coloration, etc.) is much easier to explain because aposematic traits add little further costs of conspicuousness, but can bring large benefits.
authors.affiliation: School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK. speedm@liverpool.ac.uk
authors.forename: Michael P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Speed
authors.forename: Graeme D
authors.initials: GD
authors.lastname: Ruxton
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal / Q000502:physiology; D005075:Biological Evolution; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology; D017753:Ecosystem; D008954:Models, Biological; D010858:Pigmentation; D011235:Predatory Behavior / Q000502:physiology
references.citation: Am Nat. 2002 Jan;159(1):106-12
references.pmid: 18707404
references.citation: Evolution. 1983 Sep;37(5):993-1000
references.pmid: 28563552
references.citation: Evolution. 2000 Jun;54(3):751-63
references.pmid: 10937250
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 22;98(11):6227-32
references.pmid: 11353830
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2001 Jan;61(1):205-216
references.pmid: 11170710
references.citation: Am Nat. 2003 Oct;162(4):377-89
references.pmid: 14582002
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Aug 22;269(1501):1639-44
references.pmid: 12204123
references.citation: Evolution. 1985 Sep;39(5):1155-1158
references.pmid: 28561515
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Apr 7;269(1492):741-6
references.pmid: 11934367
references.citation: Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):497-9
references.pmid: 7455691
references.citation: Oecologia. 1990 Aug;84(1):69-73
references.pmid: 28312777
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Mar 28;416(6879):375
references.pmid: 11919608
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Jan;59(1):38-45
references.pmid: 15792225
references.citation: Evolution. 1982 Sep;36(5):998-1002
references.pmid: 28567835
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Sep 7;271(1550):1859-65
references.pmid: 15315903
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jul 3;98(14):7884-7
references.pmid: 11416165