Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on February 13, 2008
Behavioral Ecology 2008 19(3):525-531; doi:10.1093/beheco/arm162
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes "eyespots" effective antipredator signals
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.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. C. Oliver, K. A. Robertson, and A. Monteiro Accommodating natural and sexual selection in butterfly wing pattern evolution Proc R Soc B, July 7, 2009; 276(1666): 2369 - 2375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Stuart-Fox and A. Moussalli Camouflage, communication and thermoregulation: lessons from colour changing organisms Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 463 - 470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Stevens, I. S Winney, A. Cantor, and J. Graham Outline and surface disruption inanimal camouflage Proc R Soc B, February 22, 2009; 276(1657): 781 - 786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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., January 1, 2009; 20(1): 96 - 102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|