Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41164339›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Complementary approaches to measure predation pressure on butterfly populations in Australia.

Hansani Sathsara Sandukalani Daluwatta Galappaththige, Marilia Fernandes Erickson, Donald James McLean, Kiara Laëtitia L'Herpiniere, Georgina Erika Binns, Liisa Hämäläinen, Louis G O'Neill, James Kevin Douch, David W Kikuchi, Hannah M Rowland and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Hansani Sathsara Sandukalani Daluwatta GalappaththigeSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8198-6657
Marilia Fernandes EricksonSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Donald James McLeanSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kiara Laëtitia L'HerpiniereSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0322-1266
Georgina Erika BinnsSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2639-3696
Liisa HämäläinenSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3766-915X
Louis G O'NeillSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
James Kevin DouchSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5623-9542
David W KikuchiDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Hannah M RowlandDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, Institute of Infection Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1040-555X
Johanna MappesOrganismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland.
Marie E HerbersteinSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5071-2952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predation pressure is a major force driving the evolution of anti-predatory traits, yet quantifying its intensity in the wild remains difficult. In this study, we combined three complementary methods to evaluate predation risk in Australian butterfly communities: assessing wing damage on wild butterflies, monitoring attacks on artificial butterfly replicas, and surveying bird communities. Across eight sites in Sydney, Australia, we recorded wing damage on 1070 free-living butterflies from five families, assessed attacks on 1600 butterfly replicas, and surveyed local bird diversity. Of the wild butterflies, 807 showed wing damage, with 169 individuals (16% of all butterflies) exhibiting patterns consistent with bird attacks. Among replicas, 114 (7%) showed evidence of predation, of which 31 (2% of all replicas) were likely to be attacked by birds. Predation on wild butterflies was most strongly associated with bird community composition, bird density, and butterfly size (wingspan), while replica attacks were influenced primarily by bird community composition and density. Our results suggest that butterfly wing damage and replica attacks data provide complementary, but not interchangeable, insights into predation risk. When integrated, they offer a more robust picture of true predation pressure. Our results underscore the critical role of bird community structure in shaping predation risk-an important consideration for any method used to assess predation in natural prey communities.

Indexed as

avian predatorsbird-attacked butterfly wingbird surveysbutterfly replicapredator–prey interactions

Identifiers

PMID41164339
PMCPMC12567073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.