4.7 Article

The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0203

关键词

communal roosting; collective aposematism; dilution effect; aggregation; predation; Heliconius

资金

  1. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institue
  2. Organization for Tropical Studies
  3. U.S. Department of Education GAANN
  4. National Geographic Society
  5. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DGE-0808392]
  6. NSF [IOS-1025106]
  7. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [1025106] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aposematic passion-vine butterflies from the genus Heliconius form communal roosts on a nightly basis. This behaviour has been hypothesized to be beneficial in terms of information sharing and/or anti-predator defence. To better understand the adaptive value of communal roosting, we tested these two hypotheses in field studies. The information-sharing hypothesis was addressed by examining following behaviour of butterflies departing from natural roosts. We found no evidence of roost mates following one another to resources, thus providing no support for this hypothesis. The anti-predator defence hypothesis was tested using avian-indiscriminable Heliconius erato models placed singly and in aggregations at field sites. A significantly higher number of predation attempts were observed on solitary models versus aggregations of models. This relationship between aggregation size and attack rate suggests that communally roosting butterflies enjoy the benefits of both overall decreased attack frequency as well as a prey dilution effect. Communal roosts probably deter predators through collective aposematism in which aggregations of conspicuous, unpalatable prey communicate a more effective repel signal to predators. On the basis of our results, we propose that predation by birds is a key selective pressure maintaining Heliconius communal roosting behaviour.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据