QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online October 7, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 3925-3931 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01861

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heiling, A. M. Articles by Herberstein, M. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Heiling, A. M. Articles by Herberstein, M. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The role of UV in crab spider signals: effects on perception by prey and predators

Astrid M. Heiling^1,*, Ken Cheng², Lars Chittka³, Ann Goeth¹ and Marie E. Herberstein¹

¹ Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, 2109 NSW Australia
² Centre for the Integrative Study of Animal Behaviour, Macquarie University, North Ryde, 2109 NSW Australia
³ School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Relative reflectance of manipulated UV-absorbing spiders (black curve, N=28) and naturally white spiders (grey curve, N=25; data taken from Heiling et al., 2003).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. The responses of honeybees when presented with a choice between a flower occupied by a manipulated UV-absorbing crab spider and a vacant flower (left; N=28) and a choice between a flower occupied by a naturally white crab spider and a vacant flower (right; N=25; data taken from Heiling et al., 2003). The data show the percentage of times that honeybees first landed on the spider-occupied flower (black bars) or first landed on the vacant flower (white bars). Each bee was tested only once. **P<0.01.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Illustration of spider- and flower colour in the colour hexagon of honeybees, calculated for UV-absorbing spiders (black circles, N=28), natural spiders (white circles, N=25; data for calculation taken from Heiling et al., 2003), and the petals of daisies (white triangles, N=53). The small window represents the actual position of colours in the hexagon, shown in detail in the enlarged window.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Visual contrasts generated by UV-absorbing T. spectabilis (black bars, N=28) and natural T. spectabilis (white bars, N=25; calculation based on data taken from Heiling et al., 2003) on daisy petals from the view of honeybees and blue tits. Values are means ± S.D.; only one S.D. bar is drawn to simplify the graph. *P<0.001.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter