IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i4p708-717..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intricate covariation between exploration and avoidance learning in a generalist predator

Author

Listed:
  • Chi-Yun Kuo
  • Hao-En Chin
  • Yu-Zhe Wu

Abstract

Many predators avoid unprofitable prey by learning to use visual features of the prey as reliable indicators of quality. However, individual variation in avoidance learning is rarely examined in detail. It has been hypothesized that better avoidance learning ability might correlate with faster exploration tendency, but available data are limited in both quantity and scope. In this study, we examined the covariation between exploration, foraging decisions, and avoidance learning in a generalist lizard Eutropis multifasciata to test the prediction that faster explorers are also better avoidance learners. We also examined how sex, population, and color of unpalatable prey might mediate the exploration-avoidance learning covariation. We collected data on exploration and foraging behavior in individuals from two allopatric populations and quantified changes in foraging decisions over five daily learning trials, in which individuals were presented with normal- and bitter-tasting prey that differed consistently in color. Even though bitter prey elicited strong negative responses, lizards overall did not avoid consuming fewer such prey with learning. Instead, they learned to prioritize on palatable prey as the experiment progressed. In concordance with our prediction, we found that faster explorers were generally better avoidance learners, even though sex, population, and prey color were also important. Our study represents a rare experimental test of the exploration-avoidance learning covariation, especially in non-avian systems. Our results suggest that unpalatability might be an ineffective defense against generalist predators such as E. multifasciata and that faster explorers might impose stronger selection for the evolution of warning signals in unprofitable prey.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi-Yun Kuo & Hao-En Chin & Yu-Zhe Wu, 2023. "Intricate covariation between exploration and avoidance learning in a generalist predator," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(4), pages 708-717.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:4:p:708-717.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arad041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig A. Barnett & John Skelhorn & Melissa Bateson & Candy Rowe, 2012. "Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 418-424.
    2. Clelia Mulà & Rose Thorogood & Liisa Hämäläinen, 2022. "Social information use about novel aposematic prey depends on the intensity of the observed cue," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(4), pages 825-832.
    3. John Skelhorn & Candy Rowe, 2006. "Do the multiple defense chemicals of visually distinct species enhance predator learning?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(6), pages 947-951, November.
    4. Lisa A. Taylor & Zarreen Amin & Emily B. Maier & Kevin J. Byrne & Nathan I. Morehouse, 2016. "Flexible color learning in an invertebrate predator: Habronattus jumping spiders can learn to prefer or avoid red during foraging," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(2), pages 520-529.
    5. Hannah M. Rowland & Tom Hoogesteger & Graeme D. Ruxton & Michael P. Speed & Johanna Mappes, 2010. "A tale of 2 signals: signal mimicry between aposematic species enhances predator avoidance learning," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(4), pages 851-860.
    6. John Skelhorn & Christina G. Halpin & Candy Rowe, 2016. "Learning about aposematic prey," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(4), pages 955-964.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael E Vickers & Lisa A Taylor, 2018. "Odor alters color preference in a foraging jumping spider," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(4), pages 833-839.
    2. Alice Exnerová & Dana Ježová & Pavel Štys & Lucia Doktorovová & Bibiana Rojas & Johanna Mappes, 2015. "Different reactions to aposematic prey in 2 geographically distant populations of great tits," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1361-1370.
    3. Anna Bordiean & Michał Krzyżaniak & Mariusz J. Stolarski & Stanisław Czachorowski & Dumitru Peni, 2020. "Will Yellow Mealworm Become a Source of Safe Proteins for Europe?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    4. à Ziem, D.C. Bitang & Gninzanlong, C.L. & Tabi, C.B. & Kofané, T.C., 2021. "Dynamics and pattern formation of a diffusive predator - prey model in the subdiffusive regime in presence of toxicity," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Ossi Nokelainen & Sanni A. Silvasti & Sharon Y. Strauss & Niklas Wahlberg & Johanna Mappes, 2024. "Predator selection on phenotypic variability of cryptic and aposematic moths," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:4:p:708-717.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.