What makes eyespots intimidating–the importance of pairedness

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Ullasa Kodandaramaiah¹  Ritwika Mukherjee¹ 

[1] School of Biology, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram, CET campus, Trivandrum 695016, India

关键词: Junonia almana;    Startle display;    Intimidation;    Eye-mimicry;    Conspicuousness;    Eyespots;   

Others  :  1158293
DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-015-0307-3

 received in 2014-11-13, accepted in 2015-02-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Many butterflies possess striking structures called eyespots on their wings, and several studies have sought to understand the selective forces that have shaped their evolution. Work over the last decade has shown that a major function of eyespots is their ability to reduce predation by being intimidating to attacking predators. Two competing hypotheses seek to explain the cause of intimidation, one suggesting ‘eye-mimicry’ and the other their ‘conspicuousness’ as the reason. There is an on-going debate about which of these better explains the effectiveness of eyespots against predation. We undertook a series of indoor experiments to understand the relative importance of conspicuousness and eye-mimicry, and therefore how predator perception may have influenced the evolution of eyespots. We conducted choice tests where artificial paper models mimicking Junonia almana butterflies were presented to chickens and their preference of attack recorded.

Results

We first established that birds avoided models with a pair of eyespots. However, contrary to previous, outdoor experiments, we found that the total area of eyespots did not affect their effectiveness. Non-eye-like, fan shaped patterns derived from eyespots were found to be just as effective as eye-like circular patterns. Furthermore, we did not find a significant effect of symmetry of patterns, again in discordance with previous work. However, across all experiments, models with a pair of patterns, symmetric or asymmetric, eyelike or non-eye-like, suffered from fewer attacks compared with other models.

Conclusions

The study highlights the importance of pairedness of eyespots, and supports the hypothesis that two is a biologically significant number that is important in prey–predator signalling. We discuss the implications of our results for the understanding of eyespot evolution.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Mukherjee and Kodandaramaiah; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Blest AD: The function of eyespot patterns in the Lepidoptera. Behaviour 1957, 11:209-56.
• [2]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. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007, 61:1419-24.
• [3]Stevens M: The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2005, 80:573-88.
• [4]Brakefield PM, Gates J, Keys D, Kesbeke F, Wijngaarden PJ, Monteiro A, et al.: Development, plasticity and evolution of butterfly eyespot patters. Nature 1996, 384:236-42.
• [5]Brakefield PM, French V: Butterfly wings: the evolution of development of colour patterns. Bioessays 1999, 21:391-401.
• [6]Beldade P, Koops K, Brakefield PM: Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution. Nature 2002, 416:844-7.
• [7]Cerisse AE: The “eyespot module” and eyespots as modules: development, evolution, and integration of a complex phenotype. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2008, 310:179-90.
• [8]Saenko SV, Marialva MS, Beldade P: Involvement of the conserved Hox gene Antennapedia in the development and evolution of a novel trait. Evodevo 2011, 2:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Shirai LT, Saenko SV, Keller RA, Jerónimo MA, Brakefield PM, Descimon H, et al.: Evolutionary history of the recruitment of conserved developmental genes in association to the formation and diversification of a novel trait. BMC Evol Biol 2012, 12:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Brakefield PM: The power of evo-devo to explore evolutionary constraints: experiments with butterfly eyespots. Zoology (Jena) 2003, 106:283-90.
• [11]Breuker CJ, Gibbs M, Van Dyck H, Brakefield PM, Klingenberg CP, Van Dongen S: Integration of wings and their eyespots in the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2007, 308:454-63.
• [12]French V, Brakefield PM: Eyespot development on butterfly wings: the focal signal. Dev Biol 1995, 168:112-23.
• [13]McMillan WO, Monteiro A, Kapan DD: Development and evolution on the wing. Trends Ecol Evol 2002, 17:125-33.
• [14]French V, Brakefield PM: Pattern formation: a focus on notch in butterfly eyespots. Curr Biol 2004, 14:R663-5.
• [15]Monteiro A, Brakefield PM, French V: Butterfly Eyespots : The Genetics and Development of the Color Rings. Evolution (N Y) 1997, 51:1207-16.
• [16]Nijhout HF: Pattern formation on lepidopteran wings: Determination of an eyespot. Dev Biol 1980, 80:267-74.
• [17]Olofsson M, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C: Bird attacks on a butterfly with marginal eyespots and the role of prey concealment against the background. Biol J Linn Soc 2013, 109:290-7.
• [18]Olofsson M, Løvlie H, Tibblin J, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C: Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naïve adult fowl. Behav Ecol 2013, 24:305-10.
• [19]Olofsson M, Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C: Winter predation on two species of hibernating butterflies: monitoring rodent attacks with infrared cameras. Anim Behav 2011, 81:529-34.
• [20]Olofsson M, Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C: Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings deflect bird attacks under low light intensities with UV wavelengths. PLoS One 2010, 5:e10798.
• [21]Stevens M, Castor-Perry SA, Price JRF: The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry. Behav Ecol 2009, 20:96-102.
• [22]Stevens M, Hardman CJ, Stubbins CL: Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes “eyespots” effective antipredator signals. Behav Ecol 2008, 19:525-31.
• [23]Blut C, Wilbrandt J, Fels D, Girgel EI, Lunau K: The “sparkle” in fake eyes - the protective effect of mimic eyespots in lepidoptera. Entomol Exp Appl 2012, 143:231-44.
• [24]Coppinger RP: The Effect of Experience and Novelty on Avian Feeding Behavior with Reference to the Evolution of Warning Coloration in Butterflies. II. Reactions of Naive Birds to Novel Insec. Am Nat 1970, 104:323-35.
• [25]Kodandaramaiah U, Vallin A, Wiklund C: Fixed eyespot display in a butterfly thwarts attacking birds. Anim Behav 2009, 77:1415-9.
• [26]Merilaita S, Vallin A, Kodandaramaiah U, Dimitrova M, Ruuskanen S, Laaksonen T: Number of eyespots and their intimidating effect on naive predators in the peacock butterfly. Behav Ecol 2011, 22:1326-31.
• [27]Vlieger L, Brakefield PM: The deflection hypothesis: eyespots on the margins of butterfly wings do not influence predation by lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 2007, 92:661-7.
• [28]Kodandaramaiah U: Eyespot evolution: phylogenetic insights from Junonia and related butterfly genera (Nymphalidae: Junoniini). Evol Dev 2009, 11:489-97.
• [29]Oliver JC, Beaulieu JM, Gall LF, Piel WH, Monteiro A: Nymphalid eyespot serial homologues originate as a few individualized modules. Proc Biol Sci 2014, 281:20133262.
• [30]Oliver JC, Monteiro A: On the origins of sexual dimorphism in butterflies. Proc Biol Sci 2011, 278:1981-8.
• [31]Kodandaramaiah U, Lindenfors P, Tullberg BS: Deflective and intimidating eyespots: a comparative study of eyespot size and position in Junonia butterflies. Ecol Evol 2013, 3:4518-24.
• [32]Evans TM, Marcus JM: A simulation study of the genetic regulatory hierarchy for butterfly eyespot focus determination. Evol Dev 2006, 8:273-83.
• [33]Kleisner K, Maran T. Visual communication in animals: Applying a Portmannian and Uexküllian biosemiotic approach. Mach D Vis Commun Gruyter 2014:659–676.
• [34]Stevens M, Cantor A, Graham J, Winney IS: The function of animal “eyespots”: conspicuousness but not eye mimicry is key. Curr Zool 2009, 55:319-26.
• [35]Beldade P, Brakefield PM, Long AD: Contribution of Distal-less to quantitative variation in butterfly eyespots. Nature 2002, 415:315-8.
• [36]Beldade P, Brakefield PM: The genetics and evo-devo of butterfly wing patterns. Nat Rev Genet 2002, 3:442-52.
• [37]Monteiro A, Pierce NE: Phylogeny of Bicyclus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from COI, COII, and EF-1alpha gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2001, 18:264-81.
• [38]Keys DN: Recruitment of a hedgehog Regulatory Circuit in Butterfly Eyespot Evolution. Science (80-) 1999, 283:532-4.
• [39]Brunetti CR, Selegue JE, Monteiro A, French V, Brakefield PM, Carroll SB: The generation and diversification of butterfly eyespot color patterns. Curr Biol 2001, 11:1578-85.
• [40]Monteiro A: Alternative models for the evolution of eyespots and of serial homology on lepidopteran wings. Bioessays 2008, 30:358-66.
• [41]Robertson KA, Monteiro A: Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils. Proc Biol Sci 2005, 272:1541-6.
• [42]Prudic KL, Jeon C, Cao H, Monteiro A: Developmental plasticity in sexual roles of butterfly species drives mutual sexual ornamentation. Science 2011, 331:73-5.
• [43]Westerman EL, Drucker CB, Monteiro A: Male and Female Mating Behavior is Dependent on Social Context in the Butterfly Bicyclus anynana. J Insect Behav 2014, 27:478-95.
• [44]Gagliano M, Depczynski M: Spot the difference: mimicry in a coral reef fish. PLoS One 2013, 8:e55938.
• [45]Poulton EB: The Colours of Animals: Their Meaning and Use, Especially Considered in the Case of Insects. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co, London; 1890.
• [46]Robbins RK: The “False Head” Hypothesis: Predation and Wing Pattern Variation of Lycaenid Butterflies. Am Nat 1981, 118:770-5.
• [47]Wourms MK, Wasserman FE: Butterfly Wing Markings are More Advantageous during Handling than during the Initial Strike of an Avian Predator. Evolution (N Y) 1985, 39:845-51.
• [48]Kodandaramaiah U: The evolutionary significance of butterfly eyespots. Behav Ecol 2011, 22:1264-71.
• [49]Prudic KL, Stoehr AM, Wasik BR, Monteiro A: Eyespots deflect predator attack increasing fitness and promoting the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Proc Biol Sci 2015, 282:20141531.
• [50]Kjernsmo K, Merilaita S: Eyespots divert attacks by fish. Proc Biol Sci 2013, 280:20131458.
• [51]Vallin A, Dimitrova M, Kodandaramaiah U, Merilaita S: Deflective effect and the effect of prey detectability on anti-predator function of eyespots. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011, 65:1629-36.
• [52]Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C: Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proc Biol Sci 2005, 272:1203-7.
• [53]Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connolly Y, Troscianko T, et al.: Field experiments on the effectiveness of “eyespots” as predator deterrents. Anim Behav 2007, 74:1215-27.
• [54]Stevens M, Ruxton GD: Do animal eyespots really mimic eyes ? Curr Zool 2014, 60:26-36.
• [55]Forsman A, Herrström J: Asymmetry in size, shape, and color impairs the protective value of conspicuous color patterns. Behav Ecol 2004, 15:141-7.
• [56]Scaife M: The response to eye-like shapes by birds II. The importance of staring, pairedness and shape. Anim Behav 1976, 24:200-6.
• [57]Jones RB: Reactions of male domestic chicks to two-dimensional eye-like shapes. Anim Behav 1980, 28:212-8.
• [58]Coss RG: Eye-like schemata: their effect on behaviour. University of Reading. 1972.
• [59]Curio E: The functional organization of anti-predator behaviour in the pied flycatcher: A study of avian visual perception. Anim Behav 1975, 23(1):1-115.
• [60]GIMP: Development Team: GNU Image Manipulation Program. 2012.
• [61]Kehimkar ID: The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford Publishers, New Delhi; 2008.
• [62]R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2014.
• [63]Mukherjee, R. Kodandaramaiah, U (2015): What makes eyespots intimidating? - The importance of pairedness. http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.390t3.