Literature DB >> 19324754

Concealed by conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds.

Marina Dimitrova1, Nina Stobbe, H Martin Schaefer, Sami Merilaita.   

Abstract

High-contrast markings, called distractive or dazzle markings, have been suggested to draw and hold the attention of a viewer, thus hindering detection or recognition of revealing prey characteristics, such as the body outline. We tested this hypothesis in a predation experiment with blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and artificial prey. We also tested whether this idea can be extrapolated to the background appearance and whether high-contrast markings in the background would improve prey concealment. We compared search times for a high-contrast range prey (HC-P) and a low-contrast range prey (LC-P) in a high-contrast range background (HC-B) and a low-contrast range background (LC-B). The HC-P was more difficult to detect in both backgrounds, although it did not match the LC-B. Also, both prey types were more difficult to find in the HC-B than in the LC-B, in spite of the mismatch of the LC-P. In addition, the HC-P was more difficult to detect, in both backgrounds, when compared with a generalist prey, not mismatching either background. Thus, we conclude that distractive prey pattern markings and selection of microhabitats with distractive features may provide an effective way to improve camouflage. Importantly, high-contrast markings, both as part of the prey coloration and in the background, can indeed increase prey concealment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19324754      PMCID: PMC2674505          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  18 in total

1.  Predator and prey views of spider camouflage.

Authors:  Marc Théry; Jérôme Casas
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-10       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Visual background complexity facilitates the evolution of camouflage.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Constrained camouflage facilitates the evolution of conspicuous warning coloration.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita; Birgitta S Tullberg
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 4.  Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Sami Merilaita
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds.

Authors:  M Vorobyev; D Osorio
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

7.  Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.).

Authors:  N S Hart; J C Partridge; I C Cuthill; A T Bennett
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Selection for cryptic coloration in a visually heterogeneous habitat.

Authors:  S Merilaita; A Lyytinen; J Mappes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio.

Authors:  Afsheen Siddiqi; Thomas W Cronin; Ellis R Loew; Misha Vorobyev; Kyle Summers
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching.

Authors:  Innes C Cuthill; Martin Stevens; Jenna Sheppard; Tracey Maddocks; C Alejandro Párraga; Tom S Troscianko
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Imperfect camouflage: how to hide in a variable world?

Authors:  Anna Hughes; Eric Liggins; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  How camouflage works.

Authors:  Sami Merilaita; Nicholas E Scott-Samuel; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Cognition and the evolution of camouflage.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Candy Rowe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  False holes as camouflage.

Authors:  Leah M Costello; Nicholas E Scott-Samuel; Karin Kjernsmo; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Background complexity and the detectability of camouflaged targets by birds and humans.

Authors:  Feng Xiao; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Response time of an avian prey to a simulated hawk attack is slower in darker conditions, but is independent of hawk colour morph.

Authors:  Carina Nebel; Petra Sumasgutner; Adrien Pajot; Arjun Amar
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 2.963

7.  Defeating crypsis: detection and learning of camouflage strategies.

Authors:  Jolyon Troscianko; Alice E Lown; Anna E Hughes; Martin Stevens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Disruptive colouration and perceptual grouping.

Authors:  Irene Espinosa; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Testing the feasibility of the startle-first route to deimatism.

Authors:  Grace G Holmes; Emeline Delferrière; Candy Rowe; Jolyon Troscianko; John Skelhorn
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Camouflage strategies interfere differently with observer search images.

Authors:  Jolyon Troscianko; John Skelhorn; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.