Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration

Cryptic prey coloration typically bears a resemblance to the habitat the prey uses. It has been suggested that coloration which visually matches a random sample of the background maximizes background matching. We studied this previously untested hypothesis, as well as another, little studied principle of concealment, disruptive coloration, and whether it could, acting in addition to background matching, provide another plausible means of achieving camouflage. We presented great tits (Parus major) with artificial background-matching and disruptive prey (DP), and measured detection times. First, we studied whether any random sample of a background produces equally good crypsis. This turned out to not be the case. Next, we compared the DP and the best background-matching prey and found that they were equally cryptic. We repeated the tests using prey with all the coloration elements being whole, instead of some of them being broken by the prey outline, but this did not change the result. We conclude that resemblance of the background is an important aspect of concealment, but that coloration matching a random visual sample of the background is neither sufficient nor necessary to minimize the probability of detection. Further, our study lends empirical support to the principle of disruptive coloration.

[1]  D. Windsor,et al.  Disruptive Coloration in Butterflies: Lack of Support in Anartia fatima , 1980, Science.

[2]  Sami Merilaita,et al.  VISUAL BACKGROUND COMPLEXITY FACILITATES THE EVOLUTION OF CAMOUFLAGE , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  T. Emmel MATE SELECTION AND BALANCED POLYMORPHISM IN THE TROPICAL NYMPHALID BUTTERFLY, ANARTIA FATIMA , 1972, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  A. Granström,et al.  Post-dispersal predation on Pinus sylvestris seeds by Fringilla spp: ground substrate affects selection for seed color , 1997, Oecologia.

[5]  H. B. Cott,et al.  Adaptive Coloration in Animals , 1940 .

[6]  M. Edmunds,et al.  Defence in Animals , 1976 .

[7]  S. Merilaita,et al.  Selection for cryptic coloration in a visually heterogeneous habitat , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  J. Endler A Predator’s View of Animal Color Patterns , 1978 .

[9]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry , 2004 .

[10]  H. Barlow Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology by Stephen E. Palmer , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  S. Merilaita,et al.  Optimization of cryptic coloration in heterogeneous habitats , 1999 .

[12]  Kenneth S. Norris,et al.  An Analysis of Background Color‐Matching in Amphibians and Reptiles , 1964 .

[13]  S. Merilaita Crypsis through disruptive coloration in an isopod , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  EVOLUTION OF COLOR VARIATION IN DRAGON LIZARDS: QUANTITATIVE TESTS OF THE ROLE OF CRYPSIS AND LOCAL ADAPTATION , 2004 .

[15]  Gerald Handerson Thayer,et al.  Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom , 1909 .

[16]  C. Sandoval THE EFFECTS OF THE RELATIVE GEOGRAPHIC SCALES OF GENE FLOW AND SELECTION ON MORPH FREQUENCIES IN THE WALKING‐STICK TIMEMA CRISTINAE , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  J. Endler Progressive background in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis , 1984 .

[18]  R. Greenberg Biometry , 1969, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.