Because background matching improves concealment, prey animals have traditionally been expected to prefer parts of the habitat that match their visual appearance. However, empirical support for this is scarce. Moreover, this idea has recently been challenged by an alternative hypothesis: visual complexity of the background impedes prey detection, and hence prey could instead prefer complex parts of the habitat. We used the least killifish to test, with and without predation threat, for the importance of the visual similarity between the fish and the background, and the level of visual complexity of the background. We observed their choice between backgrounds patterned with elements based on the longitudinal black stripe of the fish. Predation risk was important under some circumstances, and induced a preference for a background of matching horizontal stripes compared with mismatching vertical stripes. Interestingly, females under predation threat showed a preference for a complex background of randomly oriented and overlapping stripes compared with matching stripes, whereas males did not discriminate between these two. Additionally, males showed a preference for matching stripes compared with complex shapes, whereas females did not discriminate between these backgrounds. We conclude that matching is important in the choice for safe habitat, but some aspects of visual complexity may override or act together with background matching.

Eyespots (colour patterns consisting of concentric rings) are found in a wide range of animal taxa and are often assumed to have an anti-predator function. Previous experiments have found strong evidence for an intimidating effect of eyespots against passerine birds. Some eyespots have been suggested to increase prey survival by diverting attacks towards less vital body parts or a direction that would facilitate escape. While eyespots in aquatic environments are widespread, their function is extremely understudied. Therefore, we investigated the protective function of eyespots against attacking fish. We used artificial prey and predator-naive three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as predators to test both the diversion (deflection) and the intimidation hypothesis. Interestingly, our results showed that eyespots smaller than the fish' own eye very effectively draw the attacks of the fish towards them. Furthermore, our experiment also showed that this was not due to the conspicuousness of the eyespot, because attack latency did not differ between prey items with and without eyespots. We found little support for an intimidating effect by larger eyespots. Even though also other markings might misdirect attacks, we can conclude that the misdirecting function may have played an important role in the evolution of eyespots in aquatic environments.

Iridescence as Camouflage Highlights d Iridescence in prey can serve a counterintuitive function: concealment d The effects of this protective function are further enhanced by glossy backgrounds d Iridescence, even for signaling purposes, may be less costly than previously thought d This newly discovered function may explain the widespread occurrence of iridescence

Iridescence is a taxonomically widespread and striking form of animal coloration, yet despite advances in understanding its mechanism, its function and adaptive value are poorly understood. We test a counterintuitive hypothesis about the function of iridescence: that it can act as camouflage through interference with object recognition. Using an established insect visual model (Bombus terrestris), we demonstrate that both diffraction grating and multilayer iridescence impair shape recognition (although not the more subtle form of diffraction grating seen in some flowers), supporting the idea that both strategies can be effective means of camouflage. We conclude that iridescence produces visual signals that can confuse potential predators, and this might explain the high frequency of iridescence in many animal taxa.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms Online enhancement: appendix.abstract: Eyespots of some prey are known to deter predators, but the reason for this response has not yet been established, and thus the taxonomically widespread occurrence of this color pattern has remained an evolutionary conundrum. Two alternative hypotheses propose that (1) the eyelike appearance of the pattern falsely indicates the presence of the predator's own enemy or (2) predators are hardwired to be cautious toward conspicuous prey. Earlier research has pertained mainly to eyespots in butterflies. Here we tested the hypothesis that eyespots resemble eyes by utilizing the lateral position of eyes in fishes. This allowed us to produce eyelike displays that did not have the round appearance of eyespots. Our study indicates that eye mimicry is an important factor evoking hesitation in predators. Moreover, we present direct evidence that this is because predators associate eyelike displays with the threat posed by their own enemies.

No abstract

Long noted by naturalists, leaf mimicry provides some of the most impressive examples of camouflage through masquerade. Many species of leaf-mimicking Lepidoptera also sport wing markings that closely resemble irregularly shaped holes caused by decay or insect damage. Despite proposals that such markings can either enhance resemblance to damaged leaves or act to disrupt surface appearance through false depth cues, to our knowledge, no attempt has been made to establish exactly how these markings function, or even whether they confer a survival benefit to prey. Here, in two field experiments using artificial butterfly-like targets, we show that false hole markings provide significant survival benefits against avian predation. Furthermore, in a computer-based visual search experiment, we demonstrate that detection of such targets by humans is impeded in a similar fashion. Equally contrasting light marks do not have the same effect; indeed, they lead to increased detection. We conclude that the mechanism is the disruption of the otherwise homogeneous wing surface (surface disruptive camouflage) and that, by resembling the holes sometimes found in real leaves, the disruptive benefits are not offset by conspicuousness costs.

Recent studies have shown that some eyespots of prey divert the strikes of predators, increasing the likelihood of prey escape. However, little is known about what makes eyespots effective divertive (deflective) prey marks. The size of eyespots varies much both between and even within taxa. Yet, whether size is important for the divertive function of eyespots is unknown. Furthermore, eyespots have often been described as highly contrasting, but the effects of contrast on the divertive function of eyespots has never been tested experimentally. Using artificial prey and the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as a model for predator cognition and behavior, we tested the importance of size as well as internal contrast for the divertive effect of eyespots. We independently increased the internal contrast and size of eyespots and found that both increased the divertive effect. The effect of size was significant over all 4 subsequent prey presentations, whereas the effect of contrast decreased after the initial presentations. These results suggest that the size and contrast of divertive marks are probably shaped by selection imposed by predation. We also discuss the involvement of predation in the seasonal and ontogenic plasticity of eyespots found in some taxa.