Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on February 13, 2008
Behavioral Ecology 2008 19(3):525-531; doi:10.1093/beheco/arm162
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/3/525    most recent
arm162v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stevens, M.
Right arrow Articles by Stubbins, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stevens, M.
Right arrow Articles by Stubbins, C. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes "eyespots" effective antipredator signals

Martin Stevens, Chloe J. Hardman and Claire L. Stubbins

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

Address correspondence to M. Stevens. E-mail: ms726{at}cam.ac.uk.


  Abstract

Many animals bear colors and patterns to reduce the risk of predation from visually hunting predators, including warning colors, camouflage, and mimicry. In addition, various species possess paired circular features often called "eyespots," which may intimidate or startle predators preventing or postponing an attack. Most explanations for how eyespots work assert that they mimic the eyes of the predators own enemies. However, recent work has indicated that spots may reduce the risk of predation based purely on how conspicuous they are to a predator's visual system. Here, we use a field technique involving artificial prey marked with stimuli of various shapes, numbers, and sizes, presented to avian predators in the field, to distinguish between the eye mimicry and conspicuousness theories. In 3 experiments, we find that the features which make effective antipredator wing markings are large size and higher numbers of spots. Stimuli with circles survived no better than those marked with other conspicuous shapes such as bars, and changing the spatial construction of the spots to increase the level of eye mimicry had no effect on the protective value of the spots. These experiments support other recent work indicating that conspicuousness, and not eye mimicry, is important in promoting avoidance behavior in predators and that eyespots on real animals need not necessarily, as most accounts claim, mimic the eyes of other animals.

Key words: antipredator, conspicuousness, eyespots, mimicry, predation, vision.

Received 6 August 2007; revised 7 November 2007; accepted 19 December 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
M. Stevens, S. A. Castor-Perry, and J. R.F. Price
The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry
Behav. Ecol., September 26, 2008; (2008) arn119v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.