The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 96-102

  Stevens, Martin ^a   Castor Perry, Sarah A ^a   Price, Jessica R F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Antipredator coloration; Aposematism; Birds; Eyespots; Predation; Symmetry

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; APOSEMATISM; BIRD; PREDATION; SIGNAL; SURVIVAL;

AVES;

EID: 58149252264     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn119     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abràmoff MD, Magalhäes PJ, Ram SJ. 2004. Image processing with image. J Biophot Int. 7:36-43.
2. Barabás SP, Hancock EG. 1999. Asymmetrical colour and wingfolding in Tithrone roseipennis (Saussure 1870) a neotropical praying mantis (Mantodea, Hymenopodidae). Trop Zool. 12:325-334.
3. Brakefield PM. 2001. Structure of a character and the evolution of butterfly eyespot patterns. J Exp Zool. 291:93-104.
4. Cott HB. 1940. Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen & Co.
5. Cox DR. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 34:187-220.
6. Cuthill IC, Hiby E, Lloyd E. 2006. The predation costs of symmetrical cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 273:1267-1271.
7. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Maddocks T, Párraga CA, Troscianko TS. 2005. Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature. 434:72-74.
8. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Windsor AMM, Walker HJ. 2006. The effects of pattern symmetry on the anti-predator effectiveness of disruptive and background matching coloration. Behav Ecol. 17:828-832.
9. Forsman A, Herrström J. 2004. Asymmetry in size, shape, and color impairs the protective value of conspicuous color patterns. Behav Ecol. 15:141-147.
10. Forsman A, Merilaita S. 1999. Fearful symmetry: pattern size and asymmetry affects aposematic signal efficacy. Evol Ecol. 13:131-140.
11. Forsman A, Merilaita S. 2003. Fearful symmetry? Intra-individual comparisons of asymmetry in cryptic vs. signalling colour patterns in butterflies. Evol Ecol. 17:491-507.
12. Fraser S, Callahan A, Klassen D, Sherratt TN. 2007. Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 274:1325-1331.
13. Kirkpatrick M, Rosenthal GG. 1994. Symmetry without fear. Nature. 372:134-135.
14. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. 2003. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. New York: Springer.
15. Lawless JF. 2002. Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
16. Mappes J, Marples NM, Endler JA. 2005. The complex business of survival by aposematism. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:598-603.
17. Marples NM, Kelly DJ. 1999. Neophobia and dietary conservatism: two distinct processes? Evol Ecol. 13:641-653.
18. Merilaita S, Lind J. 2006. Great tits (Parus major) searching for artifi-cial prey: implications for cryptic coloration and symmetry. Behav Ecol. 17:84-87.
19. Møller AP, Swaddle JP. 1997. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Monteiro A, Brakefield PM, French V. 1997. The relationship between eyespot shape and wing shape in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana: a genetic and morphometrical approach. J Evol Biol. 10:787-802.
21. Osorio D. 1996. Symmetry detection by categorization of spatial phase, a model. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 263:105-110.
22. Rasband WS. 2008. Image J [Internet]. Version 1.4j. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health. Available at: http:/rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed August 8, 2008.
23. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, Rubin DB. 2000. Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Ruxton GD, Beauchamp G. 2008. Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behav Ecol. 19:690-693.
25. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP. 2004. Avoiding attack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Schaefer MH, Stobbe N. 2006. Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 273:2427-2432.
27. Stevens M. 2007. Predator perception and the interrelation between protective coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 274:1457-1464.
28. Stevens M, Cuthill IC. 2006. Disruptive coloration, crypsis and edge detection in early visual processing. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 273:2141-2147.
29. Stevens M, Hardman CJ, Stubbins CL. 2008. Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes "eyespots" effective anti-predator signals. Behav Ecol. 19:525-531.
30. Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connelly Y, Troscianko T, Cuthill IC. 2007. Field experiments on the effectiveness of 'eyespots' as predator deterrents. Anim Behav. 74:1215-1227.
31. Stevens M, Stubbins CL, Hardman CJ. 2008. The anti-predator function of 'eyespots' on camouflaged and conspicuous prey. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:1787-1793.
32. Swaddle JP. 1999. Limits to length asymmetry detection in starlings: implications for biological signalling. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 266: 1299-1303.
33. Swaddle JP, Johnson CW. 2007. European starlings are capable of discriminating subtle size asymmetries in paired stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 87:39-49.
34. Swaddle JP, Ruff DA. 2004. Starlings have difficulty detecting dot asymmetry: implications for studying fluctuating asymmetry. Behaviour. 141:29-40.
35. Swaddle JP, Ruff DA, Page LC, Frame AM, Long VA. 2008. A test of receiver perceptual performance: European starlings' ability to detect asymmetry in a naturalistic trait. Anim Behav. 76:487-495.