Conspicuousness of distasteful prey affects the strength and durability of one-trial avoidance learning

Abstract Previous work has shown that domestic chicks learn more effectively to avoid distasteful prey if the prey in question is conspicuously coloured. However, it is not known whether conspicuousness affects strength of learning directly, or whether differences in learning stem from differences in initial encounter rate (conspicuous prey being detected more easily and hence ingested more frequently by a naive predator). In three experiments using a one-trial avoidance learning procedure in which chicks were allowed a single exposure to red or white distasteful beads on a red or white background, avoidance learning was stronger when the ‘prey’ was conspicuous (contrasted with the background) than when it was cryptic (matched the background). Learned avoidance of a conspicuously coloured bead also persisted, for longer than learned avoidance of a cryptically coloured bead. Thus, conspicuousness directly affected both the strength of initial learning and the duration of memory for a noxious stimulus.

[1]  E. Brodie,et al.  An Experimental Study of Aposematic Coloration in the Salamander Plethodon jordani , 1976 .

[2]  JANE VAN ZANDT BROWER,et al.  Experimental Studies of Mimicry in some North American Butterflies , 1957, Nature.

[3]  L. Brower,et al.  Mimicry: Differential Advantage of Color Patterns in the Natural Environment , 1964, Science.

[4]  R. Coppinger.  The Effect of Experience and Novelty On Avian Feeding Behavior With Reference To the Evolution of Warning Coloration in Butterflies Part I: Reactions of Wild-Caught Adult Blue Jays To Novel Insects , 1969 .

[5]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The evolution of conspicuous coloration: Some experiments in bad taste , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  J. Allen.  Further evidence for apostatic selection by wild passerine birds—9:1 experiments , 1974, Heredity.

[7]  Jane Van Zandt Brower,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF MIMICRY IN SOME NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLIES: PART I. THE MONARCH, DANAUS PLEXIPPUS, AND VICEROY, LIMENITIS ARCHIPPUS ARCHIPPUS , 1958 .

[8]  P. Harvey,et al.  The Evolution of Aposematic Coloration , 1981 .

[9]  Debra H. Schlenoff.  The startle responses of blue jays to Catocala (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) prey models , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  M. Dawkins.  Shifts of ‘attention’ in chicks during feeding , 1971 .

[11]  H. Hatfield,et al.  The Psychology of Animals , 1933 .

[12]  J. Bull,et al.  The Evolution of Aposematic Coloration in Distasteful Prey: A Family Model , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[13]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? , 1980, Nature.

[14]  S. Shettleworth.  The role of novelty in learned avoidance of unpalatable ‘Prey’ by domestic chicks (Gallus Gallus) , 1972 .

[15]  J. V. Z. Brower.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF MIMICRY IN SOME NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLIES. PART III. ***DANAUS GILIPPUS BERENICE AND LIMENITIS ARCHIPPUS FLORIDENSIS , 1958 .

[16]  B. Sillén-Tullberg.  The significance of coloration per Se, independent of background, for predator avoidance of aposematic prey , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  S. J. Arnold.  The Evolution of a Special Class of Modifiable Behaviors in Relation to Environmental Pattern , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[18]  Gillian M. Morrell,et al.  Experiments On Mimicry: I. the Response of Wild Birds To Artificial Prey , 1970 .

[19]  B. Clarke,et al.  Evidence for Apostatic Selection by Wild Passerines , 1968, Nature.

[20]  Prof. Dr. Eberhard Curio.  The Ethology of Predation , 1976, Zoophysiology and Ecology.

[21]  Judith A. Johnson.  The Selective Advantage of the Defensive Posture of the Newt, Taricha granulosa , 1975 .