Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies

Brett M. Seymoure, Andrew Raymundo, Kevin McGraw, W. Owen Mcmillan, Ronald L. Rutowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many organisms have evolved adaptive coloration that reduces their risk of predation. Cryptic coloration reduces the likelihood of detection/recognition by potential predators, while warning or aposematic coloration advertises unprofitability and thereby reduces the likelihood of attack. Although some studies show that aposematic coloration functions better at decreasing attack rate than crypsis, recent work has suggested and demonstrated that crypsis and aposematism are both successful strategies for avoiding predation. Furthermore, the visual environment (e.g., ambient lighting, background) affects the ability for predators to detect prey. We investigated these 2 related hypotheses using 2 well-known visually aposematic species of Heliconius butterflies, which occupy different habitats (open-canopy vs. closed-canopy), and one palatable, cryptic, generalist species Junonia coenia.We tested if the differently colored butterflies differ in attack rates by placing plasticine models of each of the 3 species in 2 different tropical habitats where the butterflies naturally occur: disturbed, open-canopy habitat and forested, closed-canopy habitat. The cryptic model had fewer attacks than one of the aposematic models. Predation rates differed between the 2 habitats, with the open habitat having much higher predation. However, we did not find an interaction between species and habitat type, which is perplexing due to the different aposematic phenotypes naturally occurring in different habitats. Our findings suggest that during the Panamanian dry season avian predation on perched butterflies is not a leading cause in habitat segregation between the 2 aposematic species and demonstrate that cryptically colored animals at rest may be better than aposematic prey at avoiding avian attacks in certain environments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)663-669
Number of pages7
JournalCurrent Zoology
Volume64
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018

Fingerprint

butterflies
habitats
predation
canopy
color
Junonia coenia
Heliconius
predators
lighting
dry season
phenotype
organisms

Keywords

  • Avian attacks
  • Camouflage
  • Heliconius
  • Junonia
  • Light environment
  • Plasticine models
  • Predation
  • Warning coloration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology

Cite this

Seymoure, B. M., Raymundo, A., McGraw, K., Owen Mcmillan, W., & Rutowski, R. L. (2018). Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies. Current Zoology, 64(5), 663-669. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zox062

Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies. / Seymoure, Brett M.; Raymundo, Andrew; McGraw, Kevin; Owen Mcmillan, W.; Rutowski, Ronald L.

In: Current Zoology, Vol. 64, No. 5, 01.10.2018, p. 663-669.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seymoure, BM, Raymundo, A, McGraw, K, Owen Mcmillan, W & Rutowski, RL 2018, 'Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies', Current Zoology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 663-669. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zox062
Seymoure, Brett M. ; Raymundo, Andrew ; McGraw, Kevin ; Owen Mcmillan, W. ; Rutowski, Ronald L. / Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies. In: Current Zoology. 2018 ; Vol. 64, No. 5. pp. 663-669.
@article{614a03b18dd54939a7b9865ffb33dc90,
title = "Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies",
abstract = "Many organisms have evolved adaptive coloration that reduces their risk of predation. Cryptic coloration reduces the likelihood of detection/recognition by potential predators, while warning or aposematic coloration advertises unprofitability and thereby reduces the likelihood of attack. Although some studies show that aposematic coloration functions better at decreasing attack rate than crypsis, recent work has suggested and demonstrated that crypsis and aposematism are both successful strategies for avoiding predation. Furthermore, the visual environment (e.g., ambient lighting, background) affects the ability for predators to detect prey. We investigated these 2 related hypotheses using 2 well-known visually aposematic species of Heliconius butterflies, which occupy different habitats (open-canopy vs. closed-canopy), and one palatable, cryptic, generalist species Junonia coenia.We tested if the differently colored butterflies differ in attack rates by placing plasticine models of each of the 3 species in 2 different tropical habitats where the butterflies naturally occur: disturbed, open-canopy habitat and forested, closed-canopy habitat. The cryptic model had fewer attacks than one of the aposematic models. Predation rates differed between the 2 habitats, with the open habitat having much higher predation. However, we did not find an interaction between species and habitat type, which is perplexing due to the different aposematic phenotypes naturally occurring in different habitats. Our findings suggest that during the Panamanian dry season avian predation on perched butterflies is not a leading cause in habitat segregation between the 2 aposematic species and demonstrate that cryptically colored animals at rest may be better than aposematic prey at avoiding avian attacks in certain environments.",
keywords = "Avian attacks, Camouflage, Heliconius, Junonia, Light environment, Plasticine models, Predation, Warning coloration",
author = "Seymoure, {Brett M.} and Andrew Raymundo and Kevin McGraw and {Owen Mcmillan}, W. and Rutowski, {Ronald L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/cz/zox062",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "663--669",
journal = "Current Zoology",
issn = "1674-5507",
publisher = "Chinese Academy of Sciences",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Environment-dependent attack rates of cryptic and aposematic butterflies

AU - Seymoure, Brett M.

AU - Raymundo, Andrew

AU - McGraw, Kevin

AU - Owen Mcmillan, W.

AU - Rutowski, Ronald L.

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Many organisms have evolved adaptive coloration that reduces their risk of predation. Cryptic coloration reduces the likelihood of detection/recognition by potential predators, while warning or aposematic coloration advertises unprofitability and thereby reduces the likelihood of attack. Although some studies show that aposematic coloration functions better at decreasing attack rate than crypsis, recent work has suggested and demonstrated that crypsis and aposematism are both successful strategies for avoiding predation. Furthermore, the visual environment (e.g., ambient lighting, background) affects the ability for predators to detect prey. We investigated these 2 related hypotheses using 2 well-known visually aposematic species of Heliconius butterflies, which occupy different habitats (open-canopy vs. closed-canopy), and one palatable, cryptic, generalist species Junonia coenia.We tested if the differently colored butterflies differ in attack rates by placing plasticine models of each of the 3 species in 2 different tropical habitats where the butterflies naturally occur: disturbed, open-canopy habitat and forested, closed-canopy habitat. The cryptic model had fewer attacks than one of the aposematic models. Predation rates differed between the 2 habitats, with the open habitat having much higher predation. However, we did not find an interaction between species and habitat type, which is perplexing due to the different aposematic phenotypes naturally occurring in different habitats. Our findings suggest that during the Panamanian dry season avian predation on perched butterflies is not a leading cause in habitat segregation between the 2 aposematic species and demonstrate that cryptically colored animals at rest may be better than aposematic prey at avoiding avian attacks in certain environments.

AB - Many organisms have evolved adaptive coloration that reduces their risk of predation. Cryptic coloration reduces the likelihood of detection/recognition by potential predators, while warning or aposematic coloration advertises unprofitability and thereby reduces the likelihood of attack. Although some studies show that aposematic coloration functions better at decreasing attack rate than crypsis, recent work has suggested and demonstrated that crypsis and aposematism are both successful strategies for avoiding predation. Furthermore, the visual environment (e.g., ambient lighting, background) affects the ability for predators to detect prey. We investigated these 2 related hypotheses using 2 well-known visually aposematic species of Heliconius butterflies, which occupy different habitats (open-canopy vs. closed-canopy), and one palatable, cryptic, generalist species Junonia coenia.We tested if the differently colored butterflies differ in attack rates by placing plasticine models of each of the 3 species in 2 different tropical habitats where the butterflies naturally occur: disturbed, open-canopy habitat and forested, closed-canopy habitat. The cryptic model had fewer attacks than one of the aposematic models. Predation rates differed between the 2 habitats, with the open habitat having much higher predation. However, we did not find an interaction between species and habitat type, which is perplexing due to the different aposematic phenotypes naturally occurring in different habitats. Our findings suggest that during the Panamanian dry season avian predation on perched butterflies is not a leading cause in habitat segregation between the 2 aposematic species and demonstrate that cryptically colored animals at rest may be better than aposematic prey at avoiding avian attacks in certain environments.

KW - Avian attacks

KW - Camouflage

KW - Heliconius

KW - Junonia

KW - Light environment

KW - Plasticine models

KW - Predation

KW - Warning coloration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054991638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054991638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/cz/zox062

DO - 10.1093/cz/zox062

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 663

EP - 669

JO - Current Zoology

JF - Current Zoology

SN - 1674-5507

IS - 5

ER -