Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching

Natural selection shapes the evolution of anti-predator defences, such as camouflage. It is currently contentious whether crypsis and disruptive coloration are alternative mechanisms of camouflage or whether they are interrelated anti-predator defences. Disruptively coloured prey is characterized by highly contrasting patterns to conceal the body shape, whereas cryptic prey minimizes the contrasts to background. Determining bird predation of artificial moths, we found that moths which were dissimilar from the background but sported disruptive patterns on the edge of their wings survived better in heterogeneous habitats than did moths with the same patterns inside of the wings and better than cryptic moths. Despite lower contrasts to background, crypsis did not provide fitness benefits over disruptive coloration on the body outline. We conclude that disruptive coloration on the edge camouflages its bearer independent of background matching. We suggest that this result is explainable because disruptive coloration is effective by exploiting predators' cognitive mechanisms of prey recognition and not their sensory mechanisms of signal detection. Relative to disruptive patterns on the body outline, disruptive markings on the body interior are less effective. Camouflage owing to disruptive coloration on the body interior is background-specific and is as effective as crypsis in heterogeneous habitats. Hence, we hypothesize that two proximate mechanisms explain the diversity of visual anti-predator defences. First, disruptive coloration on the body outline provides camouflage independent of the background. Second, background matching and disruptive coloration on the body interior provide camouflage, but their protection is background-specific.

[1]  T. Sherratt,et al.  Hiding in plain sight. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Durrell D. Kapan,et al.  Development and evolution on the wing , 2002 .

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

[4]  A. Thayer,et al.  Concealing-coloration in the animal kingdom : an exposition of the laws of disguise through color and pattern being a summary of Abbott H. Thayer's discoveries , 1909 .

[5]  G. Katzir,et al.  Plant coloration undermines herbivorous insect camouflage. , 2004, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[6]  S. Merilaita,et al.  Great Tits (parus Major) Searching for Artificial Prey: Implications for Cryptic Coloration and Symmetry , 2005 .

[7]  I. Owens,et al.  EVOLUTION OF COLOR VARIATION IN DRAGON LIZARDS: QUANTITATIVE TESTS OF THE ROLE OF CRYPSIS AND LOCAL ADAPTATION , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[9]  Bruce Grant,et al.  FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM , 1999 .

[10]  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.

[11]  J. Endler NATURAL SELECTION ON COLOR PATTERNS IN POECILIA RETICULATA , 1980, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[12]  C. Clarke,et al.  Parallel Rise and Fall of Melanic Peppered Moths in America and Britain , 1996 .

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

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

[15]  M. Huynen,et al.  Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching , 2005, Nature.

[16]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[18]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.) , 2000, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[19]  O. Håstad,et al.  Differences in color vision make passerines less conspicuous in the eyes of their predators. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Jérôme Casas,et al.  Specific Color Sensitivities of Prey and Predator Explain Camouflage in Different Visual Systems , 2004 .

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

[22]  S. Merilaita,et al.  CONSTRAINED CAMOUFLAGE FACILITATES THE EVOLUTION OF CONSPICUOUS WARNING COLORATION , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  A. Bond,et al.  Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey , 2002, Nature.

[24]  Sami Merilaita,et al.  Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  J. Allen,et al.  Selection by wild birds on artificial dimorphic prey on varied backgrounds , 1994 .

[26]  J. Endler Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.