IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v15y2024i1d10.1038_s41467-024-45329-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predator selection on phenotypic variability of cryptic and aposematic moths

Author

Listed:
  • Ossi Nokelainen

    (Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Viikki Biocenter 3, P.O. Box 65
    Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35
    Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35)

  • Sanni A. Silvasti

    (Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35
    School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University)

  • Sharon Y. Strauss

    (Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis, 2320 Storer Hall, One Shields Avenue
    Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Wallotstrasse 19)

  • Niklas Wahlberg

    (Department of Biology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 37, SE-223 62)

  • Johanna Mappes

    (Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Viikki Biocenter 3, P.O. Box 65
    Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Wallotstrasse 19)

Abstract

Natural selection generally favours phenotypic variability in camouflaged organisms, whereas aposematic organisms are expected to evolve a more uniform warning coloration. However, no comprehensive analysis of the phenotypic consequences of predator selection in aposematic and cryptic species exists. Using state-of-the-art image analysis, we examine 2800 wing images of 82 moth species accessed via three online museum databases. We test whether anti-predator strategy (i.e., camouflage or aposematism) explains intraspecific variation in wing colour and pattern across northern hemisphere moths. In addition, we test two mutually non-exclusive, ecological hypotheses to explain variation in colour pattern: diel-activity or dietary-niche. In this work, taking into account phylogenetic relationships, moth phenotypic variability is best explained by anti-predator strategy with camouflaged moths being more variable in wing patterning than aposematic species.

Suggested Citation

  • Ossi Nokelainen & Sanni A. Silvasti & Sharon Y. Strauss & Niklas Wahlberg & Johanna Mappes, 2024. "Predator selection on phenotypic variability of cryptic and aposematic moths," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-45329-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-45329-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45329-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-024-45329-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher D. Beatty & Kirsten Beirinckx & Thomas N. Sherratt, 2004. "The evolution of müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities," Nature, Nature, vol. 431(7004), pages 63-66, September.
    2. Alan B. Bond & Alan C. Kamil, 2002. "Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6872), pages 609-613, February.
    3. Leena Lindström & Rauno V. Alatalo & Johanna Mappes & Marianna Riipi & Laura Vertainen, 1999. "Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change?," Nature, Nature, vol. 397(6716), pages 249-251, January.
    4. Hannah M. Rowland & Eira Ihalainen & Leena Lindström & Johanna Mappes & Michael P. Speed, 2007. "Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences," Nature, Nature, vol. 448(7149), pages 64-67, July.
    5. John M. Ratcliffe & Marie L. Nydam, 2008. "Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7209), pages 96-99, September.
    6. Innes C. Cuthill & Martin Stevens & Jenna Sheppard & Tracey Maddocks & C. Alejandro Párraga & Tom S. Troscianko, 2005. "Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7029), pages 72-74, March.
    7. Changku Kang & Martin Stevens & Jong-yeol Moon & Sang-Im Lee & Piotr G. Jablonski, 2015. "Camouflage through behavior in moths: the role of background matching and disruptive coloration," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 45-54.
    8. Marina Dimitrova & Sami Merilaita, 2012. "Prey pattern regularity and background complexity affect detectability of background-matching prey," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 384-390.
    9. Kathleen L. Prudic & Ana K. Skemp & Daniel R. Papaj, 2007. "Aposematic coloration, luminance contrast, and the benefits of conspicuousness," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(1), pages 41-46, January.
    10. Alan B. Bond & Alan C. Kamil, 1998. "Apostatic selection by blue jays produces balanced polymorphism in virtual prey," Nature, Nature, vol. 395(6702), pages 594-596, October.
    11. Marianne Aronsson & Gabriella Gamberale-Stille, 2009. "Importance of internal pattern contrast and contrast against the background in aposematic signals," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(6), pages 1356-1362.
    12. John Skelhorn & Christina G. Halpin & Candy Rowe, 2016. "Learning about aposematic prey," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(4), pages 955-964.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melia G. Nafus & Jennifer M. Germano & Jeanette A. Perry & Brian D. Todd & Allyson Walsh & Ronald R. Swaisgood, 2015. "Hiding in plain sight: a study on camouflage and habitat selection in a slow-moving desert herbivore," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1389-1394.
    2. Joanna R Hall & Roland Baddeley & Nicholas E Scott-Samuel & Adam J Shohet & Innes C Cuthill, 2017. "Camouflaging moving objects: crypsis and masquerade," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1248-1255.
    3. Jennifer L Kelley & Ian Taylor & Nathan S Hart & Julian C Partridge, 2017. "Aquatic prey use countershading camouflage to match the visual background," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1314-1322.
    4. Dylan H N Thomas & Karin Kjernsmo & Nicholas E Scott-Samuel & Heather M Whitney & Innes C Cuthill, 2023. "Interactions between color and gloss in iridescent camouflage," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 751-758.
    5. Maria E McNamara & Derek E G Briggs & Patrick J Orr & Sonja Wedmann & Heeso Noh & Hui Cao, 2011. "Fossilized Biophotonic Nanostructures Reveal the Original Colors of 47-Million-Year-Old Moths," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-8, November.
    6. Marie-Christin Hardenbicker & Cynthia Tedore, 2023. "Peacock spiders prefer image statistics of average natural scenes over those of male ornamentation," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 719-728.
    7. van Leeuwen, E. & Jansen, V.A.A., 2010. "Evolutionary consequences of a search image," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 49-55.
    8. Elizabeth G Postema & Mia K Lippey & Tiernan Armstrong-Ingram, 2023. "Color under pressure: how multiple factors shape defensive coloration," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(1), pages 1-13.
    9. Marianne Aronsson & Gabriella Gamberale-Stille, 2013. "Evidence of signaling benefits to contrasting internal color boundaries in warning coloration," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(2), pages 349-354.
    10. Changku Kang & Martin Stevens & Jong-yeol Moon & Sang-Im Lee & Piotr G. Jablonski, 2015. "Camouflage through behavior in moths: the role of background matching and disruptive coloration," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 45-54.
    11. Michael E Vickers & Lisa A Taylor, 2018. "Odor alters color preference in a foraging jumping spider," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(4), pages 833-839.
    12. May, R. & Reitan, O. & Bevanger, K. & Lorentsen, S.-H. & Nygård, T., 2015. "Mitigating wind-turbine induced avian mortality: Sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive constraints and options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 170-181.
    13. Callum Duffield & Christos C Ioannou, 2017. "Marginal predation: do encounter or confusion effects explain the targeting of prey group edges?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1283-1292.
    14. Kaori Tsurui & Atsushi Honma & Takayoshi Nishida, 2010. "Camouflage Effects of Various Colour-Marking Morphs against Different Microhabitat Backgrounds in a Polymorphic Pygmy Grasshopper Tetrix japonica," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-7, July.
    15. Jolyon Troscianko & Jared Wilson-Aggarwal & David Griffiths & Claire N. Spottiswoode & Martin Stevens, 2017. "Relative advantages of dichromatic and trichromatic color vision in camouflage breaking," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 556-564.
    16. Alyssa S Hess & Andrew J Wismer & Corey J Bohil & Mark B Neider, 2016. "On the Hunt: Searching for Poorly Defined Camouflaged Targets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    17. à Ziem, D.C. Bitang & Gninzanlong, C.L. & Tabi, C.B. & Kofané, T.C., 2021. "Dynamics and pattern formation of a diffusive predator - prey model in the subdiffusive regime in presence of toxicity," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Amanda M Franklin & Matthew B Applegate & Sara M Lewis & Fiorenzo G Omenetto, 2017. "Stomatopods detect and assess achromatic cues in contests," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1329-1336.
    19. Chi-Yun Kuo & Hao-En Chin & Yu-Zhe Wu, 2023. "Intricate covariation between exploration and avoidance learning in a generalist predator," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(4), pages 708-717.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-45329-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.