IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v22y2011i6p1326-1331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sami Merilaita
  • Adrian Vallin
  • Ullasa Kodandaramaiah
  • Marina Dimitrova
  • Suvi Ruuskanen
  • Toni Laaksonen

Abstract

Predation experiments have shown that the large eyespots (concentric rings of contrasting colors) found on the wings of several lepidopteran species intimidate passerine predators. According to the eye mimicry hypotheses, the intimidation is caused by predators associating the eyespots with the presence (of the eyes) of their own enemy. The conspicuousness hypothesis suggests, instead, that it is simply the conspicuousness of eyespot patterns that is intimidating, possibly due to a sensory bias. We studied how the number of eyespots, 2 or 4, influences intimidation. We predicted that if eye mimicry is important, the maximum response would be reached with a pair of eyespots. On the other hand, if conspicuousness is important, then more than 2 eyespots should result in an even stronger response. The peacock butterfly, Inachis io, has 4 large eyespots on its wings. We presented naïve insectivorous birds (pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca) 2 different prey items made from wings of dead peacock butterflies and a mealworm between the wings. One group of birds received prey that had no or only 2 eyespots visible and the other group received prey that had no or all 4 eyespots visible. Eyespots clearly increased hesitation before attacks. Because the birds were naïve, this difference in response to the eyespots was innate. Importantly, there was no difference in attack latency between 2 and 4 eyespots. We conclude that it is unlikely that conspicuousness as such has selected for eyespots in the peacock butterfly. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Sami Merilaita & Adrian Vallin & Ullasa Kodandaramaiah & Marina Dimitrova & Suvi Ruuskanen & Toni Laaksonen, 2011. "Number of eyespots and their intimidating effect on naïve predators in the peacock butterfly," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(6), pages 1326-1331.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:6:p:1326-1331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arr135
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Skelhorn & Giles Dorrington & Thomas J. Hossie & Thomas N. Sherratt, 2014. "The position of eyespots and thickened segments influence their protective value to caterpillars," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(6), pages 1417-1422.
    2. Martin Olofsson & Hanne Løvlie & Jessika Tibblin & Sven Jakobsson & Christer Wiklund, 2013. "Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naïve adult fowl," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 305-310.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:6:p:1326-1331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.