Number of eyespots and their intimidating effect on naïve predators in the peacock butterfly

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1326-1331

  Merilaita, Sami ^a   Vallin, Adrian ^a   Kodandaramaiah, Ullasa ^b   Dimitrova, Marina ^b   Ruuskanen, Suvi ^c   Laaksonen, Toni ^d  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

antipredator adaptation; intimidation; pied flycatcher; predation; prey coloration

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; BUTTERFLY; COLOR MORPH; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; EYE; MIMICRY; MORPHOLOGY; NATIVE SPECIES; PASSERINE; PREDATION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; WING;

AVES; FICEDULA HYPOLEUCA; INACHIS IO; JUNONIA COENIA; PASSERIFORMES;

EID: 80455123746     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr135     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Blest AD. 1957. The function of eyespot patterns in Lepidoptera. Behaviour. 11:209-256.
2. Coppinger RP. 1969. The effect of experience and novelty on avian feeding behavior with reference to the evolution of warning coloration in butterflies part I: reactions of wild-caught adult blue jays to novel insects. Behaviour. 35:45-60.
3. Cott HB. 1940. Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen & Co.
4. Dimitrova M, Stobbe N, Schaefer HM, Merilaita S. 2009. Concealed by conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 276:1905-1910.
5. Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Burns JM. 2010. A tropical horde of counterfeit predator eyes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:11659-11665.
6. Kodandaramaiah U, Vallin A, Wiklund C. 2009. Fixed eyespot display in a butterfly thwarts attacking birds. Anim Behav. 77:1415-1419.
7. Lundberg A, Alatalo R. 1992. The pied flycatcher. London: Poyser.
8. Lyytinen A, Brakefield PM, Lindström L, Mappes J. 2004. Does predation maintain eyespot plasticity in Bicyclus anynana? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:279-283.
9. Morton Jones F. 1932. Insect coloration and the relative acceptability of insects to birds. Trans Roy Ent Soc. 80:345-371.
10. Morton Jones F. 1934. Further experiments on coloration and the relative acceptability of insects to birds. Trans Roy Ent Soc. 82: 443-453.
11. Poulton EB. 1890. The colours of animals. London: Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
12. Robertson KA, Monteiro A. 2005. Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 272:1541-1546.
13. Ruuskanen S, Laaksonen T. 2010. Yolk hormones have sex-specific long-term effects on behavior in the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). Horm Behav. 57:119-127.
14. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TM, Speed MP. 2004. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Siitari H, Honkavaara J, Huhta E, Viitala J. 2002. Ultraviolet reflection and female mate choice in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav. 63:97-102.
16. Sirkiä PM, Laaksonen T. 2009. Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim Behav. 78:1051-1060.
17. Stevens M. 2005. The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biol Rev. 80:573-588.
18. Stevens M, Hardman CJ, Stubbins CL. 2008. Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes "eyespots" effective antipredator signals. Behav Ecol. 19:525-531.
19. 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.
20. Stevens M, Merilaita S. 2009. Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 364:423-427.
21. Vallin A, Dimitrova M, Kodandaramaiah U, Merilaita S. 2011. Deflective effect and the effect of prey detectability on anti-predator function of eyespots. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 65:1629-1636.
22. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C. 2005. Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:1203-1207.
23. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C. 2006. Crypsis versus intimidation-anti-predation defence in three closely related butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 59:455-459.
24. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C. 2007. An eye for an eye"-on the generality of the intimidating quality of eyespots in a butterfly and a hawkmoth. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 61:1419-1424.