15062580

Avian Predation Rates of Caterpillars due to Background

Introduction

This experiment investigated two types of colouration: cryptic and aposematic colouration
(Madigosky, 2004; Breed and Moore, 2016). Additionally, this study involved the investigation of
three different colourations for these dummy caterpillars, green, brown and red, within two
different habitats (leaves and bark). Therefore, green dummy caterpillars should be better
camouflaged on the green leaves, and therefore the brown dummy caterpillars should be
camouflaged on the bark of twigs, since this is background matching camouflage (Breed and Moore,
2016). The objectives of this experiment were: to determine whether the predation rate differs due
to the background the prey items are on; to determine whether the predation rate differs between
the colours of the dummy caterpillars; furthermore, to determine whether there is a correlation
between survival rate of cryptic caterpillars and the background they are on; and finally, to
determine whether there is a difference between survival rates due to the aggregations of
caterpillars (Connell, 2000).

Method

The experiment involved the construction of 100 pastry caterpillars of each colour (green, brown
and red), that are made with the dimensions of 20 mm by 5 mm. This dummy caterpillars will be
placed into aggregations of either tens, two sets of fives, five sets of two and ten individuals being
solitary. These aggregations were then placed into one of two background habitats either on leaves
or on twigs. After intervals of 24, 48, 96 and 168 hours, the number of surviving caterpillars of each
colour in both backgrounds were counted. However, due to unusually high predation rates on the
dummy caterpillars with the initial 24 hours the majority of the data could not be used. The data was
the analysed using an R script, and a Sharpio-Wilk test found that the data was not normally
distributed.

Results

The Kruskal-Wallis test found that there was only significance between the survivors and the
background (H = 11.459, df = 1, P = 0.0007116), there was no significance for aggregation size (H =
3.406, df = 3, p = 0.3331) and colours (H = 3.123, df = 2, p = 0.2098). This was further supported by
the three-way anova as the background was the only variables the yielded significant difference of
the mean survivorship (F (1,300) = 11.179, p = 0.000932).

Figure 1, Survivability of ‘Caterpillars’ in Different

Sized Groups.

Figure 2, Survivability of ‘Caterpillars’ based on

Colouration.

Figure 3, Survivability of ‘Caterpillars’ in Different

Backgrounds.

The boxplots (Figure 1 and 2) show that there was no significant difference between the predation
due to aggregation size or colouration, however there was a significant difference between
survivorship in different backgrounds (Figure 3).
 15062580

Discussion

As was no significant difference between the survivorship of caterpillars in different sized

aggregations (Figure 1), a possible explanation for this was that the size of the aggregations draw
more attention for predators searching for potential prey (Connell, 2000). The data shows that the
predation rate is not dependent on the aggregation size of the prey items, which contrasts the
selfish herd theory (Hamilton, 1971). Predation should be to be frequency-dependent (beyond the
threshold of two individuals) hence large clusters of ‘caterpillars’ increase the probability of the
individual being predated upon (Endler and Greenwood, 1988). Therefore, this evidence could be
possibly because in small aggregations the birds are less likely to detect the ‘caterpillars’ are present
in their territory. However, if they are spotted by a bird then the individual or small group could be
completely wiped out (Hamilton, 1971).

As there is no significant differences in the survivorship of dummy caterpillars based on colouration

(Figure 2). Furthermore, there was no increased survivorship for the cryptic green and brown
caterpillars in their more suitable background (leaves and twigs respectively). A possible explanation
for there being no significant difference could because avian predators have evolved coloured vision
and have an ability to prime attention in determining the prey item from the background (Huheey,
1984; Reid, 1992). Additionally, there was no increase in survival rates for caterpillars displaying
warning colourations (Figure 2); a possible explanation is that red caterpillars did not contain taste
aversive chemicals therefore this is imperfect Batesian mimicry (deceitful signal), thus without the
negative reinforcement the birds will learn to target the red caterpillars (Mallet and Joron, 1999;
Breed and Moore, 2016). Additionally, there should have a 6.4 times higher survival rate of red
‘caterpillars’ compared to those with cryptic colouration, as long as they were signalling an honest
display (Sillén-Tullberg, 1985). Another possible reason why there was no significant differences
between the survival rates between the different colours is that the caterpillars were poorly cryptic
(Endler, 2006).

However, there was a significant difference between the predation rates due to the background
(Figure 3). There was a significantly higher survivorship of ‘caterpillars’ that were on leaves; a
possible explanation for this is that the experiment did not replicate natural conditions as birds are
more likely to forage on leaves that have already been damaged by caterpillar feeding (Heinrich,
1979; Heinrich and Collins, 1983). Therefore, it would be optimal for the birds to not forage as
intensively on leaves that have not been damaged by caterpillar feeding. Hence it would be
preferable for the birds to predate on the ‘caterpillars’ on the twigs in terms of time-budgeting and
energy efficiency (Heinrich and Collins, 1983; Breed and Moore, 2016). Furthermore, this means
birds should be less likely to predate upon caterpillars on leaves with no physical damage caused by
feeding. Thus the methodology could have skewed the results of the experiment.

Additionally, birds’ actively forage on the undersides of leaves as caterpillars tend to feed on the
leaves from this position (Heinrich, 1979; Heinrich and Collins, 1983). Therefore, if some dummy
caterpillars were positioned on the topside of the leaves, this would not recreate the natural
behaviour of caterpillar feeding and could explain why there is a significant difference between
survivorship.

Conclusion

There was only a significant difference between the predation rates of ‘caterpillars’ due to the
differences in the background they were on. This is probably due to the foraging behaviour of aerial
avian predators; as predating on ‘caterpillars’ on twigs would require less time and therefore less
 15062580

energy expenditure compared to searching for caterpillars on leaves with no signs of previous
caterpillar feeding (Heinrich and Collins, 1983).

Also the lack of significance between the predation rates based on colour show the limitation of the
experimental methodology. Since, the ‘caterpillars’ with the aposematic colouration (red) were not
displaying an honest signal and the cryptic ‘caterpillars’ (green and brown) were examples of poor
cryptic colourations. Finally, the lack of any significance when comparing the survivorship due to
aggregation can be explained by limitations of the self-herd hypothesis, since more individuals would
alert birds to that position to predate on the caterpillars.

References
Connell, S. d., 2000. Is there safety-in-numbers for prey?. Oikos, 88(3), pp.527-532.

Endler, J.A., 2006. Disruptive and cryptic coloration. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 273(1600), pp.2425-2426.

Endler, J.A. and Greenwood, J.J.D., 1988. Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration
[and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 319(1196),
pp.505-523.

Hamilton, W.D., 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of theoretical Biology, 31(2), pp.295-311.

Heinrich, B. and Collins, S.L., 1983. Caterpillar Leaf Damage, and the Game of Hide‐and‐Seek with
Birds. Ecology, 64(3), pp.592-602.

Huheey, J.E., 1984. Warning coloration and mimicry. Chemical ecology of insects (pp. 257-297). Springer US.

Madigosky, S.R., 2004. Survival Strategies: A Matter of Life and Death. Forest Canopies, p.423.

Mallet, J. and Joron, M., 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting
balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30(1), pp.201-233.

Reid, P.J. and Shettleworth, S.J., 1992. Detection of cryptic prey: search image or search rate?. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 18(3), p.273.

Sillén-Tullberg, B., 1985. Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful
bug. Oecologia, 67(3), pp.411-415.