Hensley, N. M.; Shulman, L. M.; Rivers, T. J.; Gerrish, G. A.; Herbert-Read, J.; Morin, J. G.

Colour and contrast are commonly deployed in anti-predator signals like aposematism or deimatism. In oceans, colour information diminishes with depth, leaving blue bioluminescence the most common visual signal, regardless of function. Bioluminescence can deter predators, but without contrasting colours, how so is largely uncharacterized. Here, we test this by observing fish predators responding to prey that use defensive bioluminescence (Ostracods, Cypridinidae). By manipulating potential chemical defences of prey, and by comparing feeding responses to both luminescent and nonluminescent prey, we show that luminescent prey are unpalatable and use facultative bioluminescence as an aposematic signal. We observed active, luminescent prey secrete bioluminescence only after being attacked. Predatory fishes rarely consumed luminescent prey, especially compared to nonluminescent alternatives. Food treatments revealed that luminescent species may possess some unidentified defence over nonluminescent relatives because fishes also readily ate luminescent prey that had been treated (frozen or boiled), which removed such defences. Over the course of four experimental trials, predators were less likely to consume luminescent prey as their cumulative exposure to anti-predator light displays increased, indicative of learning. Despite their intermittency, temporally dynamic signals like aposematic bioluminescence may be as common and effective as better-studied static coloration, especially in marine ecosystems.