AbstractPrey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such “defence portfolios” that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g. visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade‐offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies.

BACKGROUND: Crypsis by background-matching is a critical form of anti-predator defence for animals exposed to visual predators, but achieving effective camouflage in patchy and variable natural environments is not straightforward. To cope with heterogeneous backgrounds, animals could either specialise on particular microhabitat patches, appearing cryptic in some areas but mismatching others, or adopt a compromise strategy, providing partial matching across different patch types. Existing studies have tested the effectiveness of compromise strategies in only a limited set of circumstances, primarily with small targets varying in pattern, and usually in screen-based tasks. Here, we measured the detection risk associated with different background-matching strategies for relatively large targets, with human observers searching for them in natural scenes, and focusing on colour. Model prey were designed to either 'specialise' on the colour of common microhabitat patches, or 'generalise' by matching the average colour of the whole visual scenes. RESULTS: in both the field and an equivalent online computer-based search task, targets adopting the generalist strategy were more successful in evading detection than those matching microhabitat patches. This advantage occurred because, across all possible locations in these experiments, targets were typically viewed against a patchwork of different microhabitat areas; the putatively generalist targets were thus more similar on average to their various immediate surroundings than were the specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrating close agreement between the results of field and online search experiments provides useful validation of online citizen science methods commonly used to test principles of camouflage, at least for human observers. In finding a survival benefit to matching the average colour of the visual scenes in our chosen environment, our results highlight the importance of relative scales in determining optimal camouflage strategies, and suggest how compromise coloration can succeed in nature.

Averting attack by biting flies is increasingly regarded as the evolutionary driver of zebra stripes, although the precise mechanism by which stripes ameliorate attack by ectoparasites is unknown. We examined the behaviour of tabanids (horse flies) in the vicinity of captive plains zebras and uniformly coloured domestic horses living on a horse farm in Britain. Observations showed that fewer tabanids landed on zebras than on horses per unit time, although rates of tabanid circling around or briefly touching zebra and horse pelage did not differ. In an experiment in which horses sequentially wore cloth coats of different colours, those wearing a striped pattern suffered far lower rates of tabanid touching and landing on coats than the same horses wearing black or white, yet there were no differences in attack rates to their naked heads. In separate, detailed video analyses, tabanids approached zebras faster and failed to decelerate before contacting zebras, and proportionately more tabanids simply touched rather than landed on zebra pelage in comparison to horses. Taken together, these findings indicate that, up close, striped surfaces prevented flies from making a controlled landing but did not influence tabanid behaviour at a distance. To counteract flies, zebras swished their tails and ran away from fly nuisance whereas horses showed higher rates of skin twitching. As a consequence of zebras’ striping, very few tabanids successfully landed on zebras and, as a result of zebras’ changeable behaviour, few stayed a long time, or probed for blood.

Aposematic theory has historically predicted that predators should select for warning signals to converge on a single form, as a result of frequency‐dependent learning. However, widespread variation in warning signals is observed across closely related species, populations and, most problematically for evolutionary biologists, among individuals in the same population. Recent research has yielded an increased awareness of this diversity, challenging the paradigm of signal monomorphy in aposematic animals. Here we provide a comprehensive synthesis of these disparate lines of investigation, identifying within them three broad classes of explanation for variation in aposematic warning signals: genetic mechanisms, differences among predators and predator behaviour, and alternative selection pressures upon the signal. The mechanisms producing warning coloration are also important. Detailed studies of the genetic basis of warning signals in some species, most notably Heliconius butterflies, are beginning to shed light on the genetic architecture facilitating or limiting key processes such as the evolution and maintenance of polymorphisms, hybridisation, and speciation. Work on predator behaviour is changing our perception of the predator community as a single homogenous selective agent, emphasising the dynamic nature of predator–prey interactions. Predator variability in a range of factors (e.g. perceptual abilities, tolerance to chemical defences, and individual motivation), suggests that the role of predators is more complicated than previously appreciated. With complex selection regimes at work, polytypisms and polymorphisms may even occur in Müllerian mimicry systems. Meanwhile, phenotypes are often multifunctional, and thus subject to additional biotic and abiotic selection pressures. Some of these selective pressures, primarily sexual selection and thermoregulation, have received considerable attention, while others, such as disease risk and parental effects, offer promising avenues to explore. As well as reviewing the existing evidence from both empirical studies and theoretical modelling, we highlight hypotheses that could benefit from further investigation in aposematic species. Finally by collating known instances of variation in warning signals, we provide a valuable resource for understanding the taxonomic spread of diversity in aposematic signalling and with which to direct future research. A greater appreciation of the extent of variation in aposematic species, and of the selective pressures and constraints which contribute to this once‐paradoxical phenomenon, yields a new perspective for the field of aposematic signalling.