Background colour matching by a crab spider in the field: a community sensory ecology perspective

Abstract

SUMMARYThe question of whether a species matches the colour of its natural background in the perspective of the correct receiver is complex to address for several reasons; however, the answer to this question may provide invaluable support for functional interpretations of colour. In most cases, little is known about the identity and visual sensory abilities of the correct receiver and the precise location at which interactions take place in the field, in particular for mimetic systems. In this study, we focused on Misumena vatia, a crab spider meeting the criteria for assessing crypsis better than many other models, and claimed to use colour changes for both aggressive and protective crypsis. We carried out a systematic field survey to quantitatively assess the exactness of background colour matching in M. vatia with respect to the visual system of many of its receivers within the community. We applied physiological models of bird, bee and blowfly colour vision, using flower and spider spectral reflectances measured with a spectroradiometer. We observed that crypsis at long distance is systematically achieved, exclusively through achromatic contrast, in both bee and bird visions. At short distance, M. vatia is mostly chromatically detectable, whatever the substrate, for bees and birds. However, spiders can be either poorly discriminable or quite visible depending on the substrate for bees. Spiders are always chromatically undetectable for blowflies. We discuss the biological relevance of these results in both defensive and aggressive contexts of crypsis within a community sensory perspective. Supplementary material available online at

Can bees simultaneously engage in adaptive foraging behaviour and attend to cryptic predators?

“…In contrast, in our study, discrimination of high-and low-reward flowers was very difficult, and in some groups predators were conspicuous, as they can be in the field (Defrize et al 2010). At least at the patch level used in our experiments, it appears that the additional costs of detecting cryptic predators (Ings & Chittka 2008;Ings et al 2012) are outweighed by the benefits of occasionally visiting a flower with over twice the energetic rewards of the safe flower type.…”

Diet choice of a predator in the wild: overabundance of prey and missed opportunities along the prey capture sequence

“…Overabundance of prey would also explain the lack of support for optimal patch choice (Kareiva et al 1989); even in low-quality patches spiders encountered up to 9 prey per hour, which seems to be more than sufficient given that spiders in our study ate only about one prey item per day. Prey overabundance could furthermore explain the apparently low selection pressure to be cryptic in this crab spider species (Defrize et al 2010) and the uniform foraging success obtained, irrespective of the degree of color matching with flowers (Brechv www.esajournals.org bü hl et al 2010a).…”

Background matching and camouflage efficiency predict population density in four-eyed turtle ( Sacalia quadriocellata )

“…We considered four alternative explanations for this inconsistency. A common explanation is that there is a discrimination threshold for the color vision of a predator (Théry and Casas, 2002;Théry et al, 2005;Defrize et al, 2010) or human (McCormickGoodhart and Wilhelm, 2003). The camouflage efficiency is the highest at midstream, which possibly limits the predators' prey distinction threshold.…”