Defensive posture and eyespots deter avian predators from attacking caterpillar models

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 383-389

  Hossie, Thomas John ^a   Sherratt, Thomas N ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Antipredator; Caterpillar; Eyespot; Mimicry; Morphology; Protective coloration

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; BIRD; CATERPILLAR; COLOR; DEFENSE MECHANISM; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INSECTIVORE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MIMICRY; MORPHOLOGY; POSTURE; SURVIVORSHIP;

AVES; HEXAPODA; LEPIDOPTERA; SERPENTES;

EID: 84880725032     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.05.029     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Allen T.J., Brock J.P., Glassberg J. Caterpillars in the Field and Garden: a Field Guide to the Butterfly Caterpillars of North America 2005, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes 2011, R package version 0.999375-42, Read: November 2012. http://cran.r-project.org/package%3dlme4.
3. Bates H.W. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley: Lepidoptera: Heliconiae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 1862, 23:495-564.
4. Blest A.D. The function of eyespot patterns in the Lepidoptera. Behaviour 1957, 11:209-256.
5. Blut C., Wilbrandt J., Fels D., Girgel E.I., Lunau K. The 'sparkle' in fake eyes: the protective effect of mimic eyespots in lepidoptera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2012, 143:231-244.
6. Church S.C., Jowers M., Allen J.A. Does prey dispersion affect frequency-dependent predation by wild birds?. Oecologia 1997, 111:292-296.
7. Cox D.R. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1972, 34:187-220.
8. Hall P., Layberry R., Lafontaine D. Checklist of the Butterflies of the Ottawa District 1996, Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, Ottawa.
9. Hossie T.J., Sherratt T.N. Eyespots interact with body colour to protect caterpillar-like prey from avian predators. Animal Behaviour 2012, 84:167-173.
10. Frankfater C., Tellez M.R., Slattery M. The scent of alarm: ontogenetic and genetic variation in the osmeterial gland chemistry of Papilio glaucus (Papilionidae) caterpillars. Chemoecology 2009, 19:81-96.
11. Janzen D.H., Hallwachs W. Dynamic Database for an Inventory of the Macrocaterpillar Fauna, and Its Food Plants and Parasitoids, of Area de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG), Northwestern Costa Rica (nn-SRNP-nnnnn voucher codes) 2012, http://janzen.sas.upenn.edu/caterpillars/database.lasso.
12. Janzen D.H., Hallwachs W., Burns J.M. Atropical horde of counterfeit predator eyes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2010, 107:11659-11665.
13. Kodandaramaiah U., Vallin A., Wiklund C. Fixed eyespot display in a butterfly thwarts attacking birds. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:1415-1419.
14. Lederhouse R. Avoiding the hunt: primary defenses of lepidopteran caterpillars. Insect Defenses: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators 1990, 175-189. State University of New York Press, Albany. D.L. Evans, J.O. Schmidt (Eds.).
15. Merilaita S., Vallin A., Kodandaramaiah U., Dimitrova M., Ruuskanen S., Laaksonen T. Number of eyespots and their intimidating effect onnaïve predators in the peacock butterfly. Behavioral Ecology 2011, 22:1326-1331.
16. Poulton E.B. The Colours of Animals: Their Meaning and Use Especially Considered in the Case of Insects 1890, Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner, London.
17. R Development Core Team R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2008, R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, Read November 2012. http://www.R-project.org.
18. Rowland H.M., Cuthill I.C., Harvey I.F., Speed M.P., Ruxton G.D. Can't tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:2539-2545.
19. de Ruiter L. Countershading in caterpillars: an analysis of its adaptive significance. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 1956, 11:285-341.
20. Scott J.A. The Butterflies of North America 1986, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
21. Scriber J.M., Lederhouse R.C., Dowell R.V. Hybridization studies with North American swallowtails. Swallowtail Butterflies: Their Ecology and Evolution 1995, 269-281. Scientific, Gainesville, Florida. J.M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, R.C. Lederhouse (Eds.).
22. Shirota Y. Protective function of eyespot patterns in caterpillars. Japanese Journal of Entomology 1980, 48:1-5.
23. Therneau T., Lumley T. Survival: Survival Analysis, Including Penalised Likelihood 2008, R package version 2.34-1, Read: November 2012. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survival/.
24. Valkonen J.K., Nokelainen O., Mappes J. Antipredatory function of head shape for vipers and their mimics. PLoS One 2011, 6:e22272.
25. Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Lind J., Wiklund C. Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2005, 272:1203-1207.
26. Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Lind J., Wiklund C. Crypsis versus intimidation: anti-predation defence in three closely related butterflies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2006, 59:455-459.
27. Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Wiklund C. An eye for an eye: on the generality of the intimidating quality of eyespots in a butterfly and a hawkmoth. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2007, 61:1419-1424.
28. Werner Y. Similarities of the colubrid snakes Spalerosophis and Pythonodipsas to vipers: an additional hypothesis. Copeia 1985, 1985:266-268.
29. Werner Y. Evolutionary implications of occasional (non-mimetic) behavioural triangulation of the head in snakes (Coluber rhodorhachis and Malpolon monspessulanus). Snake 1986, 18:37-41.
30. Werner Y., Frankenberg E. Head triangulation in two colubrine snakes: probable behavioural reinforcement of Batesian mimicry. Israel Journal of Zoology 1982, 31:137-150.