| 1. |
- Olofsson, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Auditory defence in the peacock butterfly (Inachis io) against mice (Apodemus flavicollis and A. sylvaticus)
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0340-5443 .- 1432-0762. ; 66:2, s. 209-215
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Morphological and behavioural traits can serve as anti-predator defence either by reducing detection or recognition risks, or by thwarting initiated attacks. The latter defence is secondary and often involves a 'startle display' comprising a sudden release of signals targeting more than one sensory modality. A suggested candidate for employing a multimodal defence is the peacock butterfly, Inachis io, which, by wing-flicking suddenly, produces sonic and ultrasonic sounds and displays four large eyespots when attacked. The eyespots make small birds retreat, but whether the sounds produced thwart predator attacks is largely unknown. Peacocks hibernate as adults in dark wintering sites and employ their secondary defence upon encounter with small rodent predators during this period. In this study, we staged predator-prey encounters in complete darkness in the laboratory between wild mice, Apodemus flavicollis and Apodemus sylvaticus, and peacocks which had their sound production intact or disabled. Results show that mice were more likely to flee from sound-producing butterflies than from butterflies which had their sound production disabled. Our study presents experimental evidence that the peacock butterfly truly employs a multimodal defence with different traits targeting different predator groups; the eyespots target birds and the sound production targets small rodent predators.
|
|
| 2. |
- Olofsson, Martin, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Bird attacks on a butterfly with marginal eyespots and the role of prey concealment against the background : Marginal eyespots can deflect bird attacks
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Small eyespots on butterflies have long been thought to deflect attacks and birds are presumptive drivers selecting for these patterns. However, evidence of this function is still ambiguous. Marginal eyespots typically consist of a UV-reflective white pupil, surrounded by one black and one yellowish ring. We have recently shown that blue tits attack such eyespots, but only under low light intensities with accentuated UV-levels. An increased salience of the eyespots relative to the rest of the butterfly probably explains this result. Possibly, a background against which the butterfly is concealed may deceive birds to making similar errors. We therefore presented speckled wood butterflies provided with eyespots (or controls without eyespots) to blue tits against two backgrounds, oak- and birch bark. Results show that (i) eyespots, independent of background, were effective in deflecting attacks, (ii) the time elapsed between a bird’s landing and attack was interactively dependent on background and whether the butterfly bore an eyespot and (iii) the speed at which a butterfly was attacked predicted the outcome, with faster birds being more prone to errors than slower birds. This underscores a speed-accuracy tradeoff in the predators and that background plays a role in the defensive qualities of marginal eyespots.
|
|
| 3. |
- Olofsson, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Bird attacks on a butterfly with marginal eyespots and the role of prey concealment against the background
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0024-4066 .- 1095-8312. ; 109:2, s. 290-297
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Small eyespots on butterflies have long been thought to deflect attacks, and birds are the presumptive drivers selecting for these patterns; however, evidence of this function is still ambiguous. Marginal eyespots typically consist of a UV-reflective white pupil, surrounded by one black and one yellowish ring. We have recently shown that Cyanistes caeruleus (blue tits) attack such eyespots, but only under low light intensities with accentuated UV levels: the increased salience of the eyespots relative to the rest of the butterfly probably explains this result. Possibly the background against which the butterfly is concealed may deceive birds to make similar errors. We therefore presented speckled wood butterflies decorated with eyespots (or controls without eyespots) to C.caeruleus against two backgrounds: oak and birch bark. Our results show that: (1) eyespots, independent of background, were effective in deflecting attacks; (2) the time elapsed between a bird landing and the attack was interactively dependent on the background and whether the butterfly bore an eyespot; and (3) the speed at which a butterfly was attacked predicted the outcome, with faster birds being more prone to errors than slower birds. This underscores a speedaccuracy trade-off in the predators, and that background plays a role in the defensive qualities of marginal eyespots.(c) 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013, 109, 290297.
|
|
| 4. |
- Olofsson, Martin, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Deimatic Display in the European Swallowtail Butterfly as a Secondary Defence against Attacks from Great Tits
- 2012
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 7:10, s. e47092-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Many animals reduce the risk of being attacked by a predator through crypsis, masquerade or, alternatively, by advertising unprofitability by means of aposematic signalling. Behavioural attributes in prey employed after discovery, however, signify the importance of also having an effective secondary defence if a predator uncovers, or is immune to, the prey's primary defence. In butterflies, as in most animals, secondary defence generally consists of escape flights. However, some butterfly species have evolved other means of secondary defence such as deimatic displays/startle displays. The European swallowtail, Papilio machaon, employs what appears to be a startle display by exposing its brightly coloured dorsal wing surface upon disturbance and, if the disturbance continues, by intermittently protracting and relaxing its wing muscles generating a jerky motion of the wings. This display appears directed towards predators but whether it is effective in intimidating predators so that they refrain from attacks has never been tested experimentally. Methodology/Principal Findings: In this study we staged encounters between a passerine predator, the great tit, Parus major, and live and dead swallowtail butterflies in a two-choice experiment. Results showed that the dead butterfly was virtually always attacked before the live butterfly, and that it took four times longer before a bird attacked the live butterfly. When the live butterfly was approached by a bird this generally elicited the butterfly's startle display, which usually caused the approaching bird to flee. We also performed a palatability test of the butterflies and results show that the great tits seemed to find them palatable. Conclusions/Significance: We conclude that the swallowtail's startle display of conspicuous coloration and jerky movements is an efficient secondary defence against small passerines. We also discuss under what conditions predator-prey systems are likely to aid the evolution of deimatic behaviours in harmless and palatable prey.
|
|
| 5. |
- Olofsson, Martin, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naive adult fowl
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Behavioral Ecology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1045-2249 .- 1465-7279. ; 24:1, s. 305-310
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Large conspicuous eyespots have evolved in multiple taxa and presumably function to thwart predator attacks. Traditionally, large eyespots were thought to discourage predator attacks because they mimicked eyes of the predators' own predators. However, this idea is controversial and the intimidating properties of eyespots have recently been suggested to Amply be a consequence of their conspicuousness. Some lepidopteran species include large eyespots in their antipredation repertoire. In the peacock butterfly, Mathis io, eyespots are typically hidden during rest and suddenly exposed by the butterfly when disturbed. Previous experiments have shown that small wild passerines are intimidated by this display. Here, we test whether eyespots also intimidate a considerably larger bird, domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus, by staging interactions between birds and peacock butterflies that were sham-painted or had their eyespots painted oven Our results show that birds typically fled when peacock butterflies performed their display regardless of whether eyespots were visible or painted over. However, birds confronting butterflies with visible eyespots delayed their return to the butterfly, were more vigilant, and more likely to utter alarm calls associated with detection of ground-based predators, compared with birds confronting butterflies with eyespots painted over. Because production of alarm calls and increased vigilance are antipredation behaviors in the fowl, their reaction suggests that eyespots may elicit fear rather than just an aversion to conspicuous patterns. Our results, therefore, suggest that predators perceive large lepidopteran eyespots as belonging to the eyes of a potential predator.
|
|
| 6. |
- Olofsson, Martin, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings deflect bird attacks under low light intensities with UV wavelengths
- 2010
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 5:5, s. e10798-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Predators preferentially attack vital body parts to avoid prey escape. Consequently, prey adaptations that make predators attack less crucial body parts are expected to evolve. Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings have long been thought to have this deflective, but hitherto undemonstrated function. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we report that a butterfly, Lopinga achine, with broad-spectrum reflective white scales in its marginal eyespot pupils deceives a generalist avian predator, the blue tit, to attack the marginal eyespots, but only under particular conditions-in our experiments, low light intensities with a prominent UV component. Under high light intensity conditions with a similar UV component, and at low light intensities without UV, blue tits directed attacks towards the butterfly head. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In nature, birds typically forage intensively at early dawn, when the light environment shifts to shorter wavelengths, and the contrast between the eyespot pupils and the background increases. Among butterflies, deflecting attacks is likely to be particularly important at dawn when low ambient temperatures make escape by flight impossible, and when insectivorous birds typically initiate another day's search for food. Our finding that the deflective function of eyespots is highly dependent on the ambient light environment helps explain why previous attempts have provided little support for the deflective role of marginal eyespots, and we hypothesize that the mechanism that we have discovered in our experiments in a laboratory setting may function also in nature when birds forage on resting butterflies under low light intensities.
|
|
| 7. |
- Olofsson, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Winter predation on two species of hibernating butterflies: monitoring rodent attacks with infrared cameras
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Animal Behaviour. - : Elsevier BV. - 0003-3472 .- 1095-8282. ; 81:3, s. 529-534
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Documentation of predator attacks in nature is important for understanding how specific antipredator defences have evolved, but previous accounts have been mostly anecdotal. Therefore, we monitored predation on two closely related butterfly species, Aglais urticae and Inachis io, during winter hibernation. Butterflies were placed singly close to the floor on walls in dark, seminatural hibernation sites (e.g. unheated outhouses). We used motion-initiated infrared-sensitive cameras to record predator attacks on the butterflies. The antipredator attributes of the two species have two characteristics: during rest the butterflies reduce predators’ attention by mimicking leaves but they can suddenly change their guise by repeatedly flicking their wings. The wing flicking also produces hissing sounds and ultrasonic clicks and, furthermore, I. io, but not A. urticae, have large eyespots on the dorsal wing surface. The two butterfly species suffer from mouse predation during the winter and mice have been suggested as potential targets for the butterflies’ sound production. Results showed that (1) mice (Apodemus spp.) were important predators on butterflies, (2) I. io often survived attacks by wing-flicking behaviour, and (3) both species moved to less accessible positions after interactions with mice and other small mammalian predators, but I. io more often so. The successful predator evasion in darkness by I. io suggests a multimodal defence; in addition to the large eyespots, which intimidate birds, we suggest that the hissing and/or click sounds produced during wing flicking may have evolved as defence against rodent attacks
|
|
| 8. |
- Vallin, Adrian, et al.
(författare)
-
An eye for an eye – on the generality of the intimidating quality of eyespots in a butterfly and a hawkmoth
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0340-5443 .- 1432-0762. ; 61:9, s. 1419-1424
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Large eyespots on the wings of butterflies and moths have been ascribed generally intimidating qualities by creating a frightening image of a bird or mammal much larger than the insect bearing the eyespots. However, evidence for this anti-predator adaptation has been largely anecdotal and only recently were peacock butterflies, Inachis io, shown to effectively thwart attacks from blue tits, Parus caeruleus. Here we test whether large eyespots on lepidopterans are generally effective in preventing attacks from small passerines, and whether the size of insect or bird can influence the outcome of interactions. We staged experiments between the larger eyed hawkmoths, Smerinthus ocellatus, and the smaller peacock butterflies, I. io, and the larger great tits, Parus major, and the smaller blue tits, P. caeruleus. Survival differed substantially between the insect species with 21 of 24 peacocks, but only 6 of 27 eyed hawkmoths, surviving attacks from the birds. Thus, surprisingly, the smaller prey survived to a higher extent, suggesting that other factors than insect size may be important. However, great tits were less easily intimidated by the insects’ eyespots and deimatic behaviour and consumed 16 of 26, but the blue tits only 8 of 25 of the butterflies and hawkmoths. Our results demonstrate that eyespots per se do not guarantee survival, and that these two insects bearing equally large eyespots are not equally well protected against predation.
|
|
| 9. |
- Vallin, Adrian, et al.
(författare)
-
Constant eyespot display as a primary defense – survival of male and female emperor moths when attacked by blue tits
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. - : ISSN 0022-4324 (prINt) tHe lepIDopterA reSeArCH FoUNDAtIoN. - 0022-4324 .- 2156-5457. ; 43, s. 9-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Large conspicuous eyespots, commonly found on the wings of butterflies and moths, have been shown to thwart attacks from predators. Previous experiments have focused on lepidopteran species that expose eyespots only when harassed by a predator. In contrast, we investigate the potential efficiency of the constantly exposed eyespots of emperor moths thus constituting a primary defense. We staged experiments between blue tits and moths having either intact or painted over eyespots. Moths with eyespots were killed as often as moths without eyespots and were, additionally, approached earlier by the birds suggesting that birds were not intimidated by their eyespots. Female moths weighed three times more than males and were less often eaten, suggesting that their large size intimidated the birds. We suggest that the constant eyespot display of the emperor moth may be associated with a cost, because potential predators seem to be attracted rather than intimidated by the display.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
