A systematic review and meta-analysis of anti-predator mechanisms of eyespots: conspicuous pattern vs eye mimicry

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The question of whether eyespots mimic eyes has certainly been around for a very long time and led to a good deal of debate and contention. This isn't purely an issue of how eyespots work either, but more widely an example of the potential pitfalls of adopting 'just-so-stories' in biology before conducting the appropriate experiments. Recent years have seen a range of studies testing eye mimicry, often purporting to find evidence for or against it, and not always entirely objectively. Thus, the current study is very welcome, rigorously analysing the findings across a suite of papers based on evidence/effect sizes in a meta-analysis.

Strengths:

The work is very well conducted, robust, objective, and makes a range of valuable contributions and conclusions, with an extensive use of literature for the research. I have no issues with the analysis undertaken, just some minor comments on the manuscript. The results and conclusions are compelling. It's probably fair to say that the topic needs more experiments to really reach firm conclusions but the authors do a good job of acknowledging this and highlighting where that future work would be best placed.

Weaknesses:

There are few weaknesses in this work, just some minor amendments to the text for clarity and information.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Many prey animals have eyespot-like markings (called eyespots) which have been shown in experiments to hinder predation. However, why eyespots are effective against predation has been debated. The authors attempt to use a meta-analytical approach to address the issue of whether eye-mimicry or conspicuousness makes eyespots effective against predation. They state that their results support the importance of conspicuousness. However, I am not convinced by this.

There have been many experimental studies that have weighed in on the debate. Experiments have included manipulating target eyespot properties to make them more or less conspicuous, or to make them more or less similar to eyes. Each study has used its own set of protocols. Experiments have been done indoors with a single predator species, and outdoors where, presumably, a large number of predator species predated upon targets. The targets (i.e, prey with eyespot-like markings) have varied from simple triangular paper pieces with circles printed on them to real lepidopteran wings. Some studies have suggested that conspicuousness is important and eye-mimicry is ineffective, while other studies have suggested that more eye-like targets are better protected. Therefore, there is no consensus across experiments on the eye-mimicry versus conspicuousness debate.

The authors enter the picture with their meta-analysis. The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The meta-analysis appears well-carried out, statistically. Their results suggest that conspicuousness is effective, while eye-mimicry is not. I am not convinced that their meta-analysis provides strong enough evidence for this conclusion. The studies that are part of the meta-analysis are varied in terms of protocols, and no single protocol is necessarily better than another. Support for conspicuousness has come primarily from one research group (as acknowledged by the authors), based on a particular set of protocols.

Furthermore, although conspicuousness is amenable to being quantified, for e.g., using contrast or size of stimuli, assessment of 'similarity to eyes' is inherently subjective. Therefore, manipulation of 'similarity to eyes' in some studies may have been subtle enough that there was no effect.

There are a few experiments that have indeed supported eye-mimicry. The results from experiments so far suggest that both eye-mimicry and conspicuousness are effective, possibly depending on the predator(s). Importantly, conspicuousness can benefit from eye-mimicry, while eye-mimicry can benefit from conspicuousness.

Therefore, I argue that generalizing based on a meta-analysis of a small number of studies that conspicuousness is more important than eye-mimicry is not justified. To summarize, I am not convinced that the current study rules out the importance of eye-mimicry in the evolution of eyespots, although I agree with the authors that conspicuousness is important.