Spot the difference: mimicry in a coral reef fish

Drivers of eyespot evolution in coral reef fishes

Evolution via natural selection has continually shaped the coloration of numerous organisms. One coloration of particular importance is the eyespot: a phylogenetically widespread, conspicuous marking that has been shown to effectively reduce predation, often through its resemblance to the eye. Although widely studied, most research has been experimental in nature. We approach eyespots using a comparative phylogenetic framework that is global in scope. Herein, we identify the potential drivers of eyespot evolution in coral reef fishes; essentially the rules that govern their appearance in this group of organisms. We surveyed 2664 reef fish species (42% of all described reef fish species) and found that eyespots are present in approximately one in every 10 species. Most eyespots occur in closely related species and have been present in some families for over 50 million years. Focusing on damselfishes (family: Pomacentridae) as a study group, we reveal that eyespots are rare in planktivorous species, which is likely driven by the predation risk associated with their feeding location. Using a heatmapping technique, we also show that the location of eyespots is fundamentally different in active fishes that swim above the benthos vs. cryptobenthic fishes that rest on the benthos. These location differences may reflect different functions of eyespots among reef fish species.

Body size determines eyespot size and presence in coral reef fishes

Numerous organisms display conspicuous eyespots. These eye-like patterns have been shown to effectively reduce predation by either deflecting strikes away from nonvital organs or by intimidating potential predators. While investigated extensively in terrestrial systems, determining what factors shape eyespot form in colorful coral reef fishes remains less well known. Using a broadscale approach we ask: How does the size of the eyespot relate to the actual eye, and at what size during ontogeny are eyespots acquired or lost? We utilized publicly available images to generate a dataset of 167 eyespot-bearing reef fish species. We measured multiple features relating to the size of the fish, its eye, and the size of its eyespot. In reef fishes, the area of the eyespot closely matches that of the real eye; however, the eyespots "pupil" is nearly four times larger than the real pupil. Eyespots appear at about 20 mm standard length. However, there is a marked decrease in the presence of eyespots in fishes above 48 mm standard length; a size which is tightly correlated with significant decreases in documented mortality rates. Above 75-85 mm, the cost of eyespots appears to outweigh their benefit. Our results identify a "size window" for eyespots in coral reef fishes, which suggests that eyespot use is strictly body size-dependent within this group.

Comparative Allometric Growth of the Mimetic Ephippid Reef Fishes Chaetodipterus faber and Platax orbicularis

Mimesis is a relatively widespread phenomenon among reef fish, but the ontogenetic processes relevant for mimetic associations in fish are still poorly understood. In the present study, the allometric growth of two allopatric leaf-mimetic species of ephippid fishes, Chaetodipterus faber from the Atlantic and Platax orbicularis from the Indo-Pacific, was analyzed using ten morphological variables. The development of fins was considered owing to the importance of these structures for mimetic behaviors during early life stages. Despite the anatomical and behavioral similarities in both juvenile and adult stages, C. faber and P. orbicularis showed distinct patterns of growth. The overall shape of C. faber transforms from a rounded-shape in mimetic juveniles to a lengthened profile in adults, while in P. orbicularis, juveniles present an oblong profile including dorsal and anal fins, with relative fin size diminishing while the overall profile grows rounder in adults. Although the two species are closely-related, the present results suggest that growth patterns in C. faber and P. orbicularis are different, and are probably independent events in ephippids that have resulted from similar selective processes.

Facing the environment: onset and development of UV markings in young fish

Most colour patterns in animals represent an elegant compromise between conspicuousness to ensure effective communication with preferred receivers and camouflage to avoid attracting the attention of unwanted predators. Many species, including several coral reef fishes, overcome this conflict by using ultraviolet (UV) colouration and signalling, as these colours are visible only over short distances and are often invisible to their predators. Despite a great interest in their behavioural significance and ecological influence on survival, little is known about when these colours first develop on the bodies of free-living animals. Here we show for the first time that the UV facial patterns of a coral reef fish do not develop in captivity but only when juveniles experience the socio-behavioural conditions of their natural environment. Using field and laboratory experiments, we determined that the onset and early development of these UV facial markings did not occur at metamorphosis. Instead, juveniles developed the UV markings during their first two weeks on the reef. Exposure to different reef environments revealed significant plasticity in the development of these markings. The direct or indirect (through intraspecific interactions) exposure to predators is a likely candidate trigger for the plastic development of these UV markings in the wild.

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.

Natural-born con artists and counterfeiters: Who is being deceived here?

Deception is ubiquitous in plant and animal kingdoms and is widely thought to provide selective advantages to the individual and evolutionary success to the species. Mimicry, a form of deception whereby an individual imitates their model to advantage by closely resembling their behavior or appearance, is particularly well documented and represented by the peripheral eyespots seen on the wings of many butterfly species. The significance of butterfly eyespots has been convincingly demonstrated to serve as an anti-predatory function either by imitation of a predator’s own dangerous enemies (intimidation hypothesis) or by deflecting predator strikes toward less-vital parts of the body (deflection hypothesis). A convincing and compelling explanation in butterflies, the functional role of eyespots as anti-predatory devices has become a widely held and firmly entrenched belief that has been freely adopted into other systems. Here we comment on a recent paper that demonstrates a vastly different role for eyespots, that of intra-specific male-male competition, and make the point that even long-held beliefs need to be tested and challenged under different contexts if we are not to be deceived ourselves.