Search

The colours of insects function in intraspecific communication such as sexual signalling, interspecific communication such as protection from predators, and in physiological processes, such as thermoregulation. The expression of melanin‐based colours is temperature‐dependent and thus likely to be impacted by a changing climate. However, it is unclear how climate change drives changes in body and wing colour may impact insect physiology and their interactions with conspecifics (e.g. mates) or heterospecific (e.g. predators or prey). The aim of this review is to synthesise the current knowledge of the consequences of climate‐driven colour change on insects. Here, we discuss the environmental factors that affect insect colours, and then we outline the adaptive mechanisms in terms of phenotypic plasticity and microevolutionary response. Throughout we discuss the impact of climate‐related colour change on insect physiology, and interactions with con‐and‐heterospecifics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world in color presents a dazzling dimension of phenotypic variation. Biological interest in this variation has burgeoned, due to both increased means for quantifying spectral information and heightened appreciation for how animals view the world differently than humans. Effective study of color traits is challenged by how to best quantify visual perception in nonhuman species. This requires consideration of at least visual physiology but ultimately also the neural processes underlying perception. Our knowledge of color perception is founded largely on the principles gained from human psychophysics that have proven generalizable based on comparative studies in select animal models. Appreciation of these principles, their empirical foundation, and the reasonable limits to their applicability is crucial to reaching informed conclusions in color research. In this article, we seek a common intellectual basis for the study of color in nature. We first discuss the key perceptual principles, namely, retinal photoreception, sensory channels, opponent processing, color constancy, and receptor noise. We then draw on this basis to inform an analytical framework driven by the research question in relation to identifiable viewers and visual tasks of interest. Consideration of the limits to perceptual inference guides two primary decisions: first, whether a sensory-based approach is necessary and justified and, second, whether the visual task refers to perceptual distance or discriminability. We outline informed approaches in each situation and discuss key challenges for future progress, focusing particularly on how animals perceive color. Given that animal behavior serves as both the basic unit of psychophysics and the ultimate driver of color ecology/evolution, behavioral data are critical to reconciling knowledge across the schools of color research.

Conspicuous displays of color comprise an enormously diverse and functionally complex class of biological signals. Many of these displays are widely publicized as resulting from chemical colorants known as pigments, which act by selectively "absorbing" part of the light spectrum (Appendix 1). However, the full diversity of animal coloration is just as strongly influenced by optically active surface structures, which act by selectively "reflecting" light (i.e., scattering). In cases where light is scattered coherently, these structural colors produce displays that are often metallic, iridescent, or kaleidoscopic in appearance. In addition to structural coloration, mechanisms such as bioluminescence and fluorescence allow the actual creation of colored light, thereby transcending the simple reflectance of whatever ambient wavelengths are available. There is enormous variation among all of these classes of colorants, and most signals arise through the interaction of diverse suites of pigments and reflecting (structural) mechanisms. Despite this complexity, however, the field of behavioral ecology has been largely preoccupied with understanding how carotenoids - a single group of pigments - may broker the honest signaling of individual quality. This focus has proven highly productive in many respects, but it has also fostered a limited and overly simplistic view of how color signals really work. As we outline here, the complete emerging story of animal coloration is far more complex and interesting. © The Author 2011.

Aposematic prey advertise their unprofitability with conspicuous warning signals that are often composed of multiple color patterns. Many species show intraspecific variation in these patterns even though selection is expected to favor invariable warning signals that enhance predator learning. However, if predators acquire avoidance to specific signal components, this might relax selection on other aposematic traits and explain variability. Here, we investigated this idea in the aposematic moth Amata nigriceps that has conspicuous black and orange coloration. The size of the orange spots in the wings is highly variable between individuals, whereas the number and width of orange abdominal stripes remains consistent. We produced artificial moths that varied in the proportion of orange in the wings or the presence of abdominal stripes. We presented these to a natural avian predator, the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala) , and recorded how different warning signal components influenced their attack decisions. When moth models had orange stripes on the abdomen, birds did not discriminate between different wing signals. However, when the stripes on the abdomen were removed, birds chose the model with smaller wing spots. In addition, we found that birds were more likely to attack moths with a smaller number of abdominal stripes. Together, our results suggest that bird predators primarily pay attention to the abdominal stripes of A. nigriceps, and this could relax selection on wing coloration. Our study highlights the importance of considering individual warning signal components if we are to understand how predation shapes selection on prey warning coloration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many prey species employ multiple defenses during interactions with predators. Multiple defenses can provide a selective advantage against a single predator at different stages of the interaction or attack, as well as against multiple predator types. However, the efficacy of multiple defenses both during different sequences of an attack and against multiple predator types, remains poorly understood. We measured and classified defensive traits used by five mimics (Müllerian and Batesian) of the myrmecomorphic golden mimicry complex and one non-mimetic species. We then performed predatory trials using two different predators that differed markedly in their body size, trophic specialization, and how they handle prey—one being an ant specialist (spider) and the other a generalist which avoided ants (skink). We identified 12 defensive traits and classified them into four groups (primary, chemical, mechanical, and behavioral), which were strongly correlated. Skinks were much less likely to attack and capture mimics than the ant-eating spider predators. Our results show that multiple defenses (five or six) were used against each predator. The defensive behaviors and features that were most effective against skinks included appendage waving and large body size, whereas the golden "shine" warning signal, large body size, cuticle thickness, and defensive gland size were most effective against spiders. Most defenses appeared to be predator-specific. We conclude that potential prey in the golden mimicry complex have been selected for multiple defenses because of their vulnerability to different predator types and consequently, the efficacy of some of these defenses likely represents a trade-off. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]