What makes eyespots intimidating-the importance of pairedness

Eyespot configuration and predator approach direction affect the antipredator efficacy of eyespots

Many prey species possess eyespots: paired markings that often consist of two or more concentric circles. Predators are wary of such prey because eyespots are conspicuous and/or mistaken for vertebrate eyes. Here we used naïve domestic chicks as predators of artificial moth-like prey to test the hypothesis that both eyespots configuration and predator approach direction affect the antipredator efficacy of eyespots. We found that when chicks approached prey straight on, eyespots configuration did not influence attack latency. Chicks that approached from either the left or the right, were slower to attack prey in which the central circle of the eyespot was centrally placed or shifted in the direction of the chick’s approach, compared to prey in which the central circle had been shifted away from the direction of approach. These findings suggest that eyespots composed of concentric circles may protect prey against predators approaching from a wider range of directions than eyespots composed of eccentric circles. They are also consistent with the idea that eyespots are mistaken for eyes, and are perceived to pose a lesser risk when their “gaze” is averted from the approaching predator.

Predator responses to prey camouflage strategies: a meta-analysis

Although numerous studies about camouflage have been conducted in the last few decades, there is still a significant gap in our knowledge about the magnitude of protective value of different camouflage strategies in prey detection and survival. Furthermore, the functional significance of several camouflage strategies remains controversial. Here we carried out a comprehensive meta-analysis including comparisons of different camouflage strategies as well as predator and prey types, considering two response variables: mean predator search time (ST) (63 studies) and predator attack rate (AR) of camouflaged prey (28 studies). Overall, camouflage increased the predator ST by 62.56% and decreased the AR of prey by 27.34%. Masquerade was the camouflage strategy that most increased predator ST (295.43%). Background matching and disruptive coloration did not differ from each other. Motion camouflage did not increase ST but decreases AR on prey. We found no evidence that eyespot increases ST and decreases AR by predators. The different types of predators did not differ from each other, but caterpillars were the type of prey that most influenced the magnitude of camouflage's effect. We highlight the potential evolutionary mechanisms that led camouflage to be a highly effective anti-predatory adaptation, as well as potential discrepancies or redundancies among strategies, predator and prey types.

Are behavioral responses to eyespots in sticklebacks influenced by the visual environment? An experimental examination

Eyespots are taxonomically widespread color patterns consisting of large concentric rings that are commonly assumed to protect prey by influencing the behaviors of predators. Although there is ample experimental evidence supporting an anti‐predator function of eyespots in terrestrial animals, whether eyespots have a similar deterring function in aquatic animals remains unclear. Furthermore, studies in terrestrial systems suggest that the protective function of eyespots depends on ambient light conditions where predators encounter them, but this effect has never been tested in aquatic environments. Here, we examine how eyespots influence behavioral responses in an aquatic environment under different visual environments, using laboratory‐reared three‐spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as model predators. Specifically, we experimentally examined behavioral responses of sticklebacks toward artificial prey patterns (control vs. eyespots) under two different light environment treatments (low vs. high). We found that eyespots did not postpone attacks from sticklebacks. However, sticklebacks approaching eyespots stopped more frequently than sticklebacks approaching prey items with a control pattern. Sticklebacks were (marginally) slower to attack prey in the low‐light treatment, but the light level did not influence stickleback behavioral responses toward eyespots. We conclude that eyespots can modulate some behaviors of an aquatic predator, albeit with a different functional role from that previously demonstrated in terrestrial species.

Evolution of macroglands and defensive mechanisms in Leiuperinae (Anura: Leptodactylidae)

Anurans show a wide variety of anti-predator mechanisms, and the species of the Neotropical clade Leiuperinae display several of them. Most species of Edalorhina, Physalaemus and Pleurodema show eyespots, hidden bright colours, macroglands in a inguinal/lumbar position, defensive behaviours and/or chemical defence. We conducted a histological analysis of dorsal and lumbar skin and revised the colour patterns, defensive behaviours and glandular secretions to study the diversity and evolution of anti-predator mechanisms associated with macroglands. We describe 17 characters and optimize these in a phylogenetic hypothesis of Leiuperinae. In the most recent common ancestor of Edalorhina + Engystomops + Physalaemus + Pleurodema, a particular type of serous gland (the main component of macroglands) evolved in the lumbar skin, along with the absence of the Eberth–Katschenko layer. A defensive behaviour observed in leiuperines with macroglands includes four displays (‘crouching down’ behaviour, rear elevation, body inflation and eye protection), all present in the same ancestor. The two elements associated with aposematism (hidden bright colours and eyespots) evolved independently in several species. Our results provide phylogenetic evidence for the startle-first hypothesis, which suggests that behavioural displays arise as sudden movements in camouflaged individuals to avoid predatory attacks, before the origin of bright coloration.

Artificial eyespots on cattle reduce predation by large carnivores

Eyespots evolved independently in many taxa as anti-predator signals. There remains debate regarding whether eyespots function as diversion targets, predator mimics, conspicuous startling signals, deceptive detection, or a combination. Although eye patterns and gaze modify human behaviour, anti-predator eyespots do not occur naturally in contemporary mammals. Here we show that eyespots painted on cattle rumps were associated with reduced attacks by ambush carnivores (lions and leopards). Cattle painted with eyespots were significantly more likely to survive than were cross-marked and unmarked cattle, despite all treatment groups being similarly exposed to predation risk. While higher survival of eyespot-painted cattle supports the detection hypothesis, increased survival of cross-marked cattle suggests an effect of novel and conspicuous marks more generally. To our knowledge, this is the first time eyespots have been shown to deter large mammalian predators. Applying artificial marks to high-value livestock may therefore represent a cost-effective tool to reduce livestock predation.

Interacting Effects of Eyespot Number and Ultraviolet Reflectivity on Predation Risk in Bicyclus anynana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

Small marginal eyespots on lepidopteran wings are conspicuous elements that attract a predator's attention to deflect attacks away from the body, but the role of ultraviolet (UV) reflectivity at the center of these patterns and variation in eyespot number in altering the function of eyespots remains unclear. Here, we performed a field-based predation experiment with artificial prey items based on the appearance of squinting bush brown butterflies Bicyclus anynana (Butler, 1879). We tested how two visual properties of the wing pattern affect predation risk: i) the number of eyespots on the ventral forewing surface-two or four; and ii) the UV reflectivity of eyespot centers-normal (where the UV reflectivity of the centers contrasts strongly with that of the darker surrounding ring) or blocked (where this contrast is reduced). In total, 807 prey items were deployed at two sites. We found a significant interaction between the number of ventral forewing eyespots and UV reflectivity in the eyespot centers: in items with fewer eyespots, blocking UV resulted in increased predation risk whereas in items with more eyespots, blocking UV resulted in decreased predation risk. If higher predation of paper models can be equated with higher levels of wing margin/eyespot conspicuity, these results demonstrate that UV reflectivity is an important factor in making eyespots more conspicuous to predators and suggest that the fitness of particular butterfly eyespot number variants may depend on the presence or absence of UV in their centers and on the ability of local predator guilds to detect UV.

Developmental and evolutionary mechanisms shaping butterfly eyespots

Butterfly eyespots are visually compelling models to study the reciprocal interactions between evolutionary and developmental processes that shape phenotypic variation. They are evolutionarily diversified, ecologically relevant, and developmentally tractable, and have made key contributions to linking genotype, development, phenotype and fitness. Advances in the availability of analytical tools (e.g. gene editing and visualization techniques) and resources (e.g. genomic and transcriptomic data) are boosting the detailed dissection of the mechanisms underlying eyespot development and evolution. Here, we review current knowledge on the ecology, development, and evolution of butterfly eyespots, with focus on recent advances. We also highlight a number of unsolved mysteries in our understanding of the patterns and processes underlying the diversification of these structures.

Attack risk for butterflies changes with eyespot number and size

Butterfly eyespots are known to function in predator deflection and predator intimidation, but it is still unclear what factors cause eyespots to serve one function over the other. Both functions have been demonstrated in different species that varied in eyespot size, eyespot number and wing size, leaving the contribution of each of these factors to butterfly survival unclear. Here, we study how each of these factors contributes to eyespot function by using paper butterfly models, where each factor is varied in turn, and exposing these models to predation in the field. We find that the presence of multiple, small eyespots results in high predation, whereas single large eyespots (larger than 6 mm in diameter) results in low predation. These data indicate that single large eyespots intimidate predators, whereas multiple small eyespots produce a conspicuous, but non-intimidating signal to predators. We propose that eyespots may gain an intimidation function by increasing in size. Our measurements of eyespot size in 255 nymphalid butterfly species show that large eyespots are relatively rare and occur predominantly on ventral wing surfaces. By mapping eyespot size on the phylogeny of the family Nymphalidae, we show that these large eyespots, with a potential intimidation function, are dispersed throughout multiple nymphalid lineages, indicating that phylogeny is not a strong predictor of eyespot size.

Eye-spots in Lepidoptera attract attention in humans

Many prey species exhibit defensive traits to decrease their chances of predation. Conspicuous eye-spots, concentric rings of contrasting colours, are one type of defensive trait that some species exhibit to deter predators. We examined the function of eye-spots in Lepidoptera to determine whether they are effective at deterring predators because they resemble eyes ('eye mimicry hypothesis') or are highly salient ('conspicuous signal hypothesis'). We recorded the gaze behaviour of men and women as they viewed natural images of butterflies and moths as well as images in which the eye-spots of these insects were modified. The eye-spots were modified by removing them, scrambling their colours, or replacing them with elliptical or triangular shapes that had either dark or light centres. Participants were generally more likely to look at, spend more time looking at and be faster to first fixate the eye-spots of butterflies and moths that were natural compared with ones that were modified, including the elliptical eye-spots with dark centres that most resembled eyes as well as the scrambled eye-spots that had the same contrast as the natural eye-spots. Participants were most likely to look at eye-spots that were numerous, had a large surface area and were located close to the insects' heads. Participants' pupils were larger when viewing eye-spots compared with the rest of the insects' body, suggesting a greater arousal when viewing eye-spots. Our results provide some support for the conspicuous signal hypothesis (and minimal support for the eye mimicry hypothesis) and suggest that eye-spots may be effective at deterring predators because they are highly conspicuous signals that draw attention.

What makes eyespots intimidating-the importance of pairedness

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0307-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.