Literature DB >> 27807134

Optimizing countershading camouflage.

Innes C Cuthill1, N Simon Sanghera2, Olivier Penacchio3, Paul George Lovell4, Graeme D Ruxton5, Julie M Harris3.   

Abstract

Countershading, the widespread tendency of animals to be darker on the side that receives strongest illumination, has classically been explained as an adaptation for camouflage: obliterating cues to 3D shape and enhancing background matching. However, there have only been two quantitative tests of whether the patterns observed in different species match the optimal shading to obliterate 3D cues, and no tests of whether optimal countershading actually improves concealment or survival. We use a mathematical model of the light field to predict the optimal countershading for concealment that is specific to the light environment and then test this prediction with correspondingly patterned model "caterpillars" exposed to avian predation in the field. We show that the optimal countershading is strongly illumination-dependent. A relatively sharp transition in surface patterning from dark to light is only optimal under direct solar illumination; if there is diffuse illumination from cloudy skies or shade, the pattern provides no advantage over homogeneous background-matching coloration. Conversely, a smoother gradation between dark and light is optimal under cloudy skies or shade. The demonstration of these illumination-dependent effects of different countershading patterns on predation risk strongly supports the comparative evidence showing that the type of countershading varies with light environment.

Keywords:  animal coloration; camouflage; defensive coloration; shape perception; shape-from-shading

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27807134      PMCID: PMC5135326          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1611589113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  14 in total

1.  Can't tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland.

Authors:  Hannah M Rowland; Innes C Cuthill; Ian F Harvey; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  From Abbott Thayer to the present day: what have we learned about the function of countershading?

Authors:  Hannah M Rowland
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.

Authors:  Torsten Hothorn; Frank Bretz; Peter Westfall
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.207

4.  Countershading: Universally deceptive or deceptively universal?

Authors:  R A Kiltie
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 17.712

5.  Three-Dimensional Camouflage: Exploiting Photons to Conceal Form.

Authors:  Olivier Penacchio; P George Lovell; Innes C Cuthill; Graeme D Ruxton; Julie M Harris
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  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

7.  Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Innes C Cuthill; Amy M M Windsor; Hannah J Walker
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Disruptive coloration, crypsis and edge detection in early visual processing.

Authors:  Martin Stevens; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  3D Camouflage in an Ornithischian Dinosaur.

Authors:  Jakob Vinther; Robert Nicholls; Stephan Lautenschlager; Michael Pittman; Thomas G Kaye; Emily Rayfield; Gerald Mayr; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Orientation to the sun by animals and its interaction with crypsis.

Authors:  Olivier Penacchio; Innes C Cuthill; P George Lovell; Graeme D Ruxton; Julie M Harris
Journal:  Funct Ecol       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 5.608

View more
  7 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

2.  Countershading enhances camouflage by reducing prey contrast.

Authors:  Callum G Donohue; Jan M Hemmi; Jennifer L Kelley
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Is countershading camouflage robust to lighting change due to weather?

Authors:  Olivier Penacchio; P George Lovell; Julie M Harris
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 2.963

Review 4.  Finding a signal hidden among noise: how can predators overcome camouflage strategies?

Authors:  James A M Galloway; Samuel D Green; Martin Stevens; Laura A Kelley
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Motion: enhancing signals and concealing cues.

Authors:  Eunice J Tan; Mark A Elgar
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 2.422

Review 6.  Stereopsis in animals: evolution, function and mechanisms.

Authors:  Vivek Nityananda; Jenny C A Read
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 3.312

7.  Establishing the behavioural limits for countershaded camouflage.

Authors:  Olivier Penacchio; Julie M Harris; P George Lovell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.