ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Imperfections in transparency and mimicry do not increase predation risk for clearwing butterflies with educated predators.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- High Contrast Markings Can Negate the Benefits of Transparent Camouflage.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Imperfections in transparency and mimicry do not increase predation risk for clearwing butterflies with educated predators.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transparency is an intuitive form of concealment and, in certain butterflies, transparent patches on the wings can contribute to several distinct forms of camouflage. However, perhaps paradoxically, the largely transparent wings of many clearwing butterflies (Ithomiini, Nymphalidae) also feature opaque, and often colorful, elements which may reduce crypsis. In many instances, these elements may facilitate aposematic signaling, but little is known of how transparency and aposematism may interact. Here, we used field predation trials to ask two main questions regarding camouflage and signaling in Ithomiini clearwings. In Experiment 1, we focused on camouflage to ask where being transparent may have an advantage over being opaque. We predicted that, as a single opaque pattern can only match a limited range of backgrounds, transparent wings would offer more effective concealment, and experience lower predation risk, over a wider range of backgrounds colors (i.e., green vs. brown substrates) and behaviors (i.e., perched vs. flying) than opaque wings. In Experiment 2, we focused on the effect conspicuous opaque colors may have on clearwing survival. We predicted that although salient signals may increase detectability, those commonly associated with toxic Ithomiini clearwings would not increase predation risk. Both experiments were conducted among educated predators within the natural range of Ithomiini clearwings and we found predation rates to be very low. In Experiment 1, we found some marginal evidence to suggest that opaque, but not transparent, butterflies may suffer increased predation during flight, whereas in Experiment 2, we found equal survival across all model prey types regardless of coloration. Taken together we suggest that any loss of camouflage due to conspicuous coloration may be compensated by aversive signaling, and that educated predators may broadly generalize across a wide range of known and novel clearwing phenotypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.