Behaviourally mediated crypsis in two nocturnal moths with contrasting appearance

Webster, Richard; Callahan, Alison; Godin, Jean‐Guy J.; Sherratt, Thomas N.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0215

Cited by 55 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These camouflage patterns were chosen to instantiate elements of three strategies (BM; edge disruptive with high-contrast patches at the target edge, DE; and surface-disruptive with central highcontrast patches, DC). These have been previously proposed to be effective camouflage for static targets [4][5][6]12]. In addition, four simple variations on these targets were created where the boundary between the high and low-contrast regions within a target was either sharp (SE and SC) or graduated (GE and GC).…”

Section: (A) Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At its most basic, it involves coloration that represents a random sample of the background [1]. This type of camouflage functions to avoid the target ever being detected (the first stage of predation), and achieves this simply by increasing the similarity of the target and background [4] so that discrimination between the two is impeded [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets

Cuthill²,

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly all research on camouflage has investigated its effectiveness for concealing stationary objects. However, animals have to move, and patterns that only work when the subject is static will heavily constrain behaviour. We investigated the effects of different camouflages on the three stages of predation-detection, identification and capture-in a computer-based task with humans. An initial experiment tested seven camouflage strategies on static stimuli. In line with previous literature, background-matching and disruptive patterns were found to be most successful. Experiment 2 showed that if stimuli move, an isolated moving object on a stationary background cannot avoid detection or capture regardless of the type of camouflage. Experiment 3 used an identification task and showed that while camouflage is unable to slow detection or capture, camouflaged targets are harder to identify than uncamouflaged targets when similar background objects are present. The specific details of the camouflage patterns have little impact on this effect. If one has to move, camouflage cannot impede detection; but if one is surrounded by similar targets (e.g. other animals in a herd, or moving background distractors), then camouflage can slow identification. Despite previous assumptions, motion does not entirely 'break' camouflage.

show abstract

Section: (A) Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets

Cuthill²,

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We showed that humbugs still retained a significant reduction in predation risk even when they were not completely aligned with the background habitat. Indeed, the orientation of an animal against a background can enhance or reduce the individual's crypsis, depending on the alignment of features within the background and body pattern (Webster et al, 2009). It has been shown that in some species of moth, individuals rest in non-random orientations that maximise crypsis with the background (Endler, 1984).…”

Section: Movement and Orientation Of Preymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been shown that in some species of moth, individuals rest in non-random orientations that maximise crypsis with the background (Endler, 1984). Moths will change their orientation to a more cryptic position (Kang et al, 2013) using both visual and tactile information (Kang et al, 2015), thereby reducing predator detection (Webster et al, 2009) and suggesting an adaptive advantage of being in-phase with the background. Our results agree to some extent with the alignment hypothesis: the humbug only suffered increased predation when its patterns were perpendicular (90 deg) to the background, which would be rare in the natural environment.…”

Section: Movement and Orientation Of Preymentioning

confidence: 99%

Disruptive colouration in reef fish: does matching the background reduce predation risk?

Phillips

How

Lange

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals use disruptive colouration to prevent detection or recognition by potential predators or prey. Highly contrasting elements within colour patterns, including vertical or horizontal bars, are thought to be effective at distracting attention away from body form and reducing detection likelihood. However, it is unclear whether such patterns need to be a good match to the spatial characteristics of the background to gain cryptic benefits. We tested this hypothesis using the iconic vertically barred humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus (Linneaus 1758), a small reef fish that lives among the finger-like projections of branching coral colonies. Using behavioural experiments, we demonstrated that the spatial frequency of the humbug pattern does not need to exactly match the spatial frequency of the coral background to reduce the likelihood of being attacked by two typical reef fish predators: slingjaw wrasse, Epibulus insidiator (Pallas 1770), and coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus (Laceṕede 1802). Indeed, backgrounds with a slightly higher spatial frequency than the humbug body pattern provided more protection from predation than well-matched backgrounds. These results were consistent for both predator species, despite differences in their mode of foraging and visual acuity, which was measured using anatomical techniques. We also showed that a slight mismatch in the orientation of the vertical bars did not increase the chances of detection. However, the likelihood of attack did increase significantly when the bars were perpendicular to the background. Our results provide evidence that fish camouflage is more complex than it initially appears, with likely many factors influencing the detection likelihood of prey by relevant predators.

show abstract

“…Anti-predator traits can be classified into four broad categories that act at different points along the predation event: (i) traits that reduce detection (e.g. the camouflage of moths against trees, Webster et al 2009), (ii) traits that reduce recognition (e.g. snake-mimicking caterpillars, Hossie and Sherratt 2012), (iii) traits that reduce capture (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field estimates of survival do not reflect ratings of mimetic similarity in wasp-mimicking hover flies

Easley

Hassall

2013

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of mimicry, and particularly the persistence of undefended Batesian mimetic forms that are imperfect copies of their defended models, remains a central question in evolutionary biology. Previous work has demonstrated that variation in mimetic fidelity in artificial prey can alter survival. However, no studies have validated the assumption that detailed laboratory-based measurements of mimetic fidelity are actually reflected in survival in natural field experiments. Here, we demonstrate that, in line with previous studies, the mimetic similarity of 77 hover fly (Diptera: Syrphidae) species to the common wasp Vespula alascensis is strongly related to the number of abdominal stripes exhibited by the flies. We then produce three artificial pastry baits: (i) a "model" which is chemically defended and has two stripes, (ii) a one-stripe mimic, and (iii) an unstriped mimic. Based on the ratings study, we predicted that the one-stripe mimic would exhibit survival intermediate between the unstriped mimic and the model. Baits were deployed in experiments each involving 81 baits (27 of each kind), at 3 sites, with experiments replicated 10 times at each site for a total deployment of 2430 baits. Proportional hazards models show that both one-striped and model baits survived equally well and significantly better than the unstriped baits, suggesting categorical prey identification rather than the use of stripe number as a continuous trait, as was suggested by the laboratory study. These findings suggests that, while humans and avian predators can distinguish mimics and models in the laboratory using a range of traits, behaviour in the field may not reflect this ability. This absence of a link between continuous measures of mimetic fidelity and prey selection may contribute to the maintenance of imperfect mimicry, but more studies using near-natural experimental paradigms are needed to investigate the phenomenon further.

show abstract

Behaviourally mediated crypsis in two nocturnal moths with contrasting appearance

Cited by 55 publications

References 31 publications

Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets

Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets

Disruptive colouration in reef fish: does matching the background reduce predation risk?

Field estimates of survival do not reflect ratings of mimetic similarity in wasp-mimicking hover flies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About