Submit a preprint


The large and central *Caligo martia* eyespot may reduce fatal attacks by birds: a case study supports the deflection hypothesis in natureuse asterix (*) to get italics
Cristiano Agra Iserhard, Shimene Torve Malta, Carla Maria Penz, Brenda Barbon Fraga, Camila Abel da Costa, Taiane Schwantz, Kauane Maiara BordinPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Many animals have colorations that resemble eyes, but the functions of such eyespots are debated. Caligo martia (Godart, 1824) butterflies have large ventral hind wing eyespots, and we aimed to test whether these eyespots act to deflect or to thwart bird attacks through intimidation in a natural community in a Restinga Forest in austral South America. We used four types of paper facsimiles: unmanipulated C. martia (with eyespots, WE), facsimiles with UV enhanced eyespots (UV), camouflaged facsimiles lacking eyespots (CM), and light-coloured facsimiles that were not camouflaged and lacked eyespots (NC). Two experiments were performed: Experiment 1 used facsimiles in a natural resting position, and in Experiment 2 facsimiles were positioned with the wings open, with ventral wing surfaces and body exposed to viewers. In both experiments facsimiles were placed in two forest sites, organized in 50 blocks with four facsimiles each, and checked for predator attacks every 24 h for five consecutive days. While WE and UV facsimiles were mostly attacked in non-vital areas (wings), most bird attacks on CM were directed at vital body areas. Notably, CM facsimiles had lower attack probability than WE, UV and NC. Our results indicate that C. martia eyespots appear to have a deflection function. Eyespots did not appear to reduce attack rates, suggesting that local bird species were not intimidated. Both eyespots and camouflage can be considered efficient functional traits in defence against predation in forest environments, and experiments focusing on local predators and prey are key to our understanding of wing pattern evolution in Lepidoptera.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Butterfly facsimiles, Defence strategy, Eye-mimicry, Intimidation, Neotropics, Restinga Forest
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Biodiversity, Community ecology, Conservation biology, Life history, Tropical ecology
Ryan Hill, University of the Pacific (, Susan Finkbeiner, California State University, Long Beach (, Logan Crees, US Department of Agriculture (, Marina Beirão, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (, Phil DeVries, University of New Orleans (, Phil Devries [] suggested: Hi Doyle, I think this is a good, simple field experiment, but inasmuch as my wife is a co-author, there is a conflict of interest. Hence I'm declining to review the MS. Below are two colleagues who are well-versed in this general topic., Phil Devries [] suggested: Cheers, Phil, Phil Devries [] suggested: Robert Dudley, Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley -, Phil Devries [] suggested: Freerk Molleman,, Freerk Molleman suggested: Dheeraj Halali "" <>, Robert Dudley [] suggested: Ryan Hill: , Antonia Monteiro suggested: Johanna Mappes, Ullasa Kodandaramaiah, Susan Finkbeiner [] suggested: Johanna Mappes, Johanna Mappes [] suggested: Apologies but I am currently on sick leave. Howeve, if I can suggest my phd student to review it under my supervision, I can help, Johanna Mappes [] suggested: No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-11-21 15:00:20
Doyle Mc Key