Butterfly Wing Markings are More Advantageous during Handling than during the Initial Strike of an Avian Predator

Wourms, Mark K.; Wasserman, Fred E.

doi:10.2307/2408684

Cited by 64 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…that the posterior eyespot gives the appearance that the head is located at that end of the body; cf. the false head hypothesis [2,23,37]) or whether the pattern attracts attention and directs attacks. Dale & Pappantoniou [38] suggest that eye mimicry might be important for the anti-predator function of eyespots against eye-picking predators (such as the cutlip minnow, Exoglossum maxillingua), but unfortunately their study lacks proper statistical analysis [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyespots divert attacks by fish

Kjernsmo

Merilaita

2013

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyespots (colour patterns consisting of concentric rings) are found in a wide range of animal taxa and are often assumed to have an anti-predator function. Previous experiments have found strong evidence for an intimidating effect of eyespots against passerine birds. Some eyespots have been suggested to increase prey survival by diverting attacks towards less vital body parts or a direction that would facilitate escape. While eyespots in aquatic environments are widespread, their function is extremely understudied. Therefore, we investigated the protective function of eyespots against attacking fish. We used artificial prey and predator-naive three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as predators to test both the diversion (deflection) and the intimidation hypothesis. Interestingly, our results showed that eyespots smaller than the fish' own eye very effectively draw the attacks of the fish towards them. Furthermore, our experiment also showed that this was not due to the conspicuousness of the eyespot, because attack latency did not differ between prey items with and without eyespots. We found little support for an intimidating effect by larger eyespots. Even though also other markings might misdirect attacks, we can conclude that the misdirecting function may have played an important role in the evolution of eyespots in aquatic environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyespots divert attacks by fish

Kjernsmo

Merilaita

2013

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fish captured by Common Murre (Uria aalge) were more likely to escape if attacked near the tail than those attacked in the head region (Sanford and Harris 1967). Lycaenid butterflies attacked on the hind wings by birds had a higher escape rate than those attacked in the head region because of increased manipulation errors (Wourms and Wasserman 1985). The evolution of conspicuous tail markings and tail autotomy in some lizards (i.e., Gekkonidae, Scincidae) has probably resulted from an increased escape rate from tailfirst attacks (Cott 1940).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary attributes of headfirst prey manipulation and swallowing in piscivores

Reimchen¹

1991

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

REIMCHEN, T. E. 1991. Evolutionary attributes of headfirst prey manipulation and swallowing in piscivores. Can. J. Zool. 69: 2912-2916.Headfirst swallowing of fish prey is a common attribute of gape-limited predators, conferring the presumed advantage of reduced esophageal abrasion. I evaluate swallowing orientation using cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) as predator and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as prey. Field data indicate that orientation is random when prey diameter is less than one-half the gape of the predator, but this increases to 90% headfirst orientation as prey diameter approaches and exceeds the maximum gape, consistent with the suspected reduction in abrasion. Experimental data show two additional advantages to headfirst orientation. Following capture, there is a 2-to 5-fold reduction in escape rate of the prey, and among prey that were swallowed, the manipulation period is substantially reduced (mean 29 vs. 8 1 s for headfirst and tailfirst orientation, respectively), the differences being most accentuated at large prey sizes. REIMCHEN, T. E. 1991. Evolutionary attributes of headfirst prey manipulation and swallowing in piscivores. Can. J. Zool. 69 : 2912-2916.La consommation tCte premikre des proies est une habitude commune chez les prkdateurs piscivores a ouverture de gueule limitke, habitude qui a probablement l'avantage d'avoir un effet abrasif rkduit sur l'oesophage. Je mesure ici l'orientation de la dkglutition en utilisant des Truites fardkes (Oncorhynchus clarki) comme prkdateurs et des kpinoches a trois kpines (Gasterosteus aculgatus) comme proies. Les donnkes recueillies sur le terrain indiquent que l'orientation se fait au hasard lorsque le diam2tre de la proie mesure moins de la moitik de l'ouverture de la gueule du prkdateur, mais la prkdation se fait tCte premikre dans 90% des cas lorsque le diamktre de la proie se rapproche de l'ouverture maximale de la gueule ou la dkpasse, ce qui correspond a la rkduction prksumke de l'abrasion. Les rksultats d'expkriences mettent en lumikre deux autres avantages d'une orientation tCte premikre : apr2s la capture, la frkquence des fuites est rkduite par un facteur de 2-5 et la consommation des proies requiert une pkriode de manipulation beaucoup plus courte (moyenne 29 s dans le cas d'une attaque tCte premikre, vs. 8 1 s dans le cas d'une attaque queue premikre); cette diffkrence s'accentue en fonction de la taille des proies.[Traduit par la rkdaction]

show abstract

“…This casts further doubt on the use of wing damage to test rate of deflection (Edmunds, 1974 b ;Robbins, 1980). Wourms & Wasserman (1985) determined the distribution of initial strikes and handling responses of blue jays Cyanocitta cristata on cabbage white butterflies Pieris rapae, painted with wing patterns similar to those found in lycaenids. They presented birds with dead unaltered butterflies as controls, and dead butterflies painted with one of six wing patterns, including several forms of lines converging on the anal angle of the hindwing, and a treatment with an eyespot near the posterior end of the hindwing.…”

Section: (1 ) Evidence For the Deflection Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of eyespots as anti‐predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyespots are found in a variety of animals, in particular lepidopterans. The role of eyespots as antipredator mechanisms has been discussed since the 19th Century, with two main hypotheses invoked to explain their occurrence. The first is that large, centrally located eyespots intimidate predators by resembling the eyes of the predators' own enemies; the second, though not necessarily conflicting, hypothesis is that small, peripherally located eyespots function as markers to deflect the attacks of predators to non-vital regions of the body. A third possibility is also proposed; that eyespots intimidate predators merely because they are novel or rarely encountered salient features. These hypotheses are reviewed, with special reference given to avian predators, since these are likely to be the principal visually hunting predators of the lepidopterans considered. Also highlighted is the necessity to consider the potential influence of sexual selection on lepidopteran wing patterns, and the genetics and development of eyespot formation.

show abstract

Butterfly Wing Markings are More Advantageous during Handling than during the Initial Strike of an Avian Predator

Cited by 64 publications

References 0 publications

Eyespots divert attacks by fish

Eyespots divert attacks by fish

Evolutionary attributes of headfirst prey manipulation and swallowing in piscivores

The role of eyespots as anti‐predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About