Personality matters: individual variation in reactions of naive bird predators to aposematic prey

Abstract

Variation in reactions to aposematic prey is common among conspecific individuals of bird predators. It may result from different individual experience but it also exists among naive birds. This variation may possibly be explained by the effect of personality-a complex of correlated, heritable behavioural traits consistent across contexts. In the great tit (Parus major), two extreme personality types have been defined. 'Fast' explorers are bold, aggressive and routine-forming; 'slow' explorers are shy, non-aggressive and innovative. Influence of personality type on unlearned reaction to aposematic prey, rate of avoidance learning and memory were tested in naive, hand-reared great tits from two opposite lines selected for exploration (slow against fast). The birds were subjected to a sequence of trials in which they were offered aposematic adult firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus). Slow birds showed a greater degree of unlearned wariness and learned to avoid the firebugs faster than fast birds. Although birds of both personality types remembered their experience, slow birds were more cautious in the memory test. We conclude that not only different species but also populations of predators that differ in proportions of personality types may have different impacts on survival of aposematic insects under natural conditions.

Diversity of warning signal and social interaction influences the evolution of imperfect mimicry

“…Consequently the weaker aversion to the novel imperfect mimic by our more developed subjects may be the direct and independent result of the bold personality itself, rather than simply a product of the growth trajectory initiated by their precocity at feeding. We did not measure personality traits in our subjects, but in another bird, the great tit ( Parus major ), fast explorers showed shorter attack latency for an aposematic insect than slow individuals (Exnerová et al., 2010), a result similar to our chicks with advanced organ development. Nevertheless, the physiological demands of a bold personality may still be the driving force for the eagerness of such chicks to peck at aposematic prey.…”

“…Nevertheless, the physiological demands of a bold personality may still be the driving force for the eagerness of such chicks to peck at aposematic prey. Bold individuals often have a higher metabolic rate than shy ones (Biro & Stamps, 2008), are at greater risk of starvation (Lichtenstein et al., 2017), and thus may need to be less catholic in their feeding, showing greater resistance to learning to avoid noxious prey (Exnerová et al., 2010). Clearly, the experimental disentanglement of predator personality, early development and motivation to feed discriminately is both relevant to our understanding of the evolution of mimicry and a complex challenge worthy of further research effort.…”

“…The aversion of conspicuous prey can even be socially transmitted (Thorogood, Kokko, & Mappes, 2017), reducing the predation pressure on newly evolved signals. Aversion can also be affected by individual variation in personality (Exnerová, Svádová, Fučíková, Drent, & Štys, 2010), which can be genetically inherited (Drent, Oers, & Noordwijk, 2003) and be accompanied by differences in morphological and physiological traits (Goerlich, Nätt, Elfwing, Macdonald, & Jensen, 2012). Whether this aversion is innate, self‐learned, or socially transmitted, warning signals are known to have a strong influence on how a predatory animal will explore and interact with prey (Aronsson & Gamberale‐Stille, 2012; Ham, Ihalainen, Lindstrom, & Mappes, 2006; Lindstrom, Alatalo, & Mappes, 1999; Rowe & Guilford, 2000).…”

Fast- and slow-exploring pigeons differ in how they use previously learned rules

“…For example, Fast-explorers learn new appetitive tasks more quickly than slow-explorers (black-capped chickadees Poecile atricapillus Guillette et al, 2009; Panamanian bishop fish Brachyrhaphis episcopi DePasquale et al, 2014), whereas slow-explorers perform better than fast-explorers on reversal learning (black-capped chickadees Guillette et al, 2011;great tits Verbeek et al, 1994; but see Amy et al 2012 where the oppostie was found in great tits) or avoidance learning tasks (great tits Exnerová et al, 2010). Most of the experiments on exploratory behavioural and cognition have focused on variation in learning speed (also called learning rate, e.g., trials to reach learning criteria, marked with 'A' for information acquisition in Table 1).…”

Predator dependent mimetic complexes: Do passerine birds avoid Central European red-and-black Heteroptera?

“…Previous experiments with naive, hand-reared birds demonstrated that great tits do not have any innate bias against red-and-black prey (Exnerová et al, 2007;Svádová et al, 2009) and that strong neophobia occurs only in some individuals depending on their personality (Exnerová et al, 2010). The avoidance of wild-caught birds is based on the individual learning, and could result either from experience with all the bug species used in the experiments, or, more likely, from experience with any unpalatable red-and-black species from the mimetic complex followed by subsequent wide generalization.…”