Back

Sight-line hypothesis explains facial color patterns in terns and allies

Hasegawa, M.

2026-03-27 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.03.25.714058 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Conspicuous coloration in animals is generally thought to evolve and be maintained through inter- or intraspecific interactions such as mate choice, but this might not always be the case. The sight-line hypothesis proposes that conspicuous light-dark contrast in front of the eyes (hereafter, eyeline) evolves and is maintained due to viability selection, enhancing an individual visual acuity and thus evolutionarily associated with a particular foraging behavior that requires accurate aiming. However, empirical evidence that supports the sight-line hypothesis is virtually absent, with no studies demonstrating the key prediction that the direction of eyelines matters. Here, I tested the sight-line hypothesis using macroevolutionary analyses in terns and allies, which are a suitable study system, because they have variation in facial color patterns, including presence/absence and, if any, various angles of eyelines. They also have a large variation in foraging behavior, including picking, plunge diving, and skimming. As predicted by the sight-line hypothesis, tern lineages that require accurate aiming at foraging (e.g., plunge diving) are more likely to have eyelines. In addition, the evolutionary transition to the state with eyelines and these foraging behaviors was more likely to occur than the reverse transition. Furthermore, as expected by the fact that the direction of travel is upwardly deviated from the direction of the bills during skimming, the eyeline angle from bills was evolutionarily positively associated with the occurrence of skimming behavior. To my knowledge, the current study is the first to demonstrate that the direction of the eyeline matters, thereby strongly supporting the sight-line hypothesis.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.6%
2
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.1%
4
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.1%
5
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
8
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
9
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
10
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
11
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.0%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
13
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
15
Evolutionary Ecology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
16
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.4%
18
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.4%
19
Evolution & Development
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
20
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.9%
22
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
24
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
26
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
27
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
28
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%