Sphingid caterpillars conspicuous patches do not function as distractive marks or warning against predators

Abstract

AbstractTo avoid predation by visual predators, caterpillars can be cryptic to decrease detectability or aposematic to warn predators of potential unpalatability. However, for some species, it is not clear if conspicuous patches are selected to avoid predation. For example, Pandora sphinx (Eumorpha pandorus, Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) caterpillars are assumed to be palatable and have both cryptic (green, brown) and conspicuous (orange, red) color morphs. Five lateral, off‐white to yellow patches on either side may serve as a warning for predators or to draw attention away from the caterpillar's form to function as distractive marks. We conducted a field study in three temperate fragmented forests in Massachusetts to investigate the potential utility of E. pandorus coloration and conspicuous patches. Using four plasticine caterpillar prey model treatments, green and red with and without lateral conspicuous patches, we tested the effects of color, patch patterning, and seasonality on attack rates by a variety of taxa. We found that 43% of the prey models (n = 964) had bite marks by an array of predators including arthropods (67.5%), birds (18.2%), rodents (11.5%), and large mammals (2.8%). Arthropods as dominant predators align with conclusions from previous studies of prey models placed near ground level. Attack rates peaked for arthropods in late August and early September but were more constant across trials for vertebrates. Arthropods, a heterogeneous group, as indicated by the variety of bite marks, showed significantly higher attack rates on green colored prey models and a tendency of higher attack on solid (non‐patch patterned) prey models. Vertebrates, more visually oriented predators, had significantly higher attack rates on red colored prey models and patch patterned prey models. Thus, our results did not suggest that conspicuous patch patterning reduced predation and therefore, we did not find support for the distractive mark hypothesis or warning hypothesis. Further, our study shows clear contrasting interpretations by different predators regarding visual defensive strategies.