Visual background complexity facilitates the evolution of camouflage

Evolution

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1248-1254

  Merilaita, Sami ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Artificial neural network; Cognition; Cryptic prey coloration; Predation; Search image

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; COGNITION; COLOR; COMPLEXITY; CRYPSIS; EVOLUTION; HABITAT STRUCTURE; PREDATION;

ANIMALIA; CRYPSIS;

EID: 0037626873     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00333.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bishop, C. M. 1995. Neural networks in pattern recognition. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
2. Cott, H. B. 1940. Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen, London.
3. Dawkins, M. 1971. Perceptual changes in chicks: another look at the 'search image' concept. Anim. Behav. 19:566-574.
4. Desimone, R., and J. Duncan, 1995. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18:193-222.
5. Dukas, R. 1998. Constraints on information processing and their effects on behaviour. Pp. 89-128. in R. Dukas. ed. Cognitive ecology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
6. Dukas, R., and A. C. Kamil. 2001. Limited attention: the constraint underlying search image. Behav. Ecol. 12:192-199.
7. Demuth, H., and M. Beale. 2000. Neural network toolbox for use with Matlab, Ver. 4. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA.
8. Edmunds, M. 1974. Defence in animals. Longman, Harlow, U.K.
9. Edmunds, M. 1990. The evolution of cryptic coloration. Pp. 3-21 in D. L. Evans and J. O. Schmidt, eds. Insect defenses. State Univ. New York Press, Albany, NY.
10. Endler, J. A. 1978. A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evol. Biol. 11:319-364.
11. _. 1984. Progressive background matching in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 22:187-231.
12. _. 1991. Interactions between predators and prey. Pp. 169-196 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 3d ed. Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
13. Enquist, M., and A. Arak. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361:446-448.
14. _. 1998. Neural representation and the evolution of signal form. Pp. 21-88 in R. Dukas, ed. Cognitive ecology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
15. Farmer, E. W., and R. M. Taylor. 1980. Visual search through color displays: effects of target-background similarity and background uniformity. Percept. Psychophy. 27:267-272.
16. Gendron, R. P. 1986. Searching for cryptic prey: evidence for optimal search rates and the formation of search images in quail. Anim. Behav. 34:898-912.
17. Gendron, R. P., and J. E. R. Staddon. 1983. Searching for cryptic prey: the effect of search rate. Am. Nat. 121:172-186.
18. Gordon, I. E. 1968. Interactions between items in visual search. J. Exp. Psychol. 76:248-355.
19. Guilford, T. 1992. Predator psychology and the evolution of prey coloration. Pp. 377-394 in M. J. Crawley, ed. Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
20. Haykin, S. 1999. Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. 2d ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
21. Holmgren, N. M. A., and M. Enquist. 1999. Dynamics of mimicry evolution. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 66:145-158.
22. Johnstone, R. A. 1994. Female preferences for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372: 172-175.
23. Merilaita, S. 1998. Crypsis through disruptive coloration in an isopod. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 256:1-6.
24. Merilaita, S., J. Tuomi, and V. Jormalainen. 1999. Optimisation of cryptic coloration in heterogeneous habitats. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67:151-161.
25. Merilaita, S., A. Lyytinen, and J. Mappes. 2001. Selection for cryptic coloration in a visually heterogeneous habitat. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268:1925-1929.
26. Mitchell, M. 1996. An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Norris, K. S., and C. H. Lowe. 1964. An analysis of background color-matching in amphibians and reptiles. Ecology 45:565-580.
28. Oxford, G. S. and R. G. Gillespie. 1996. Genetics of a polymorphism in Theridion grallator (Araneae: Theridiidae), the Hawaiian happy-face spider, from Greater Maui. Heredity 76:238-248.
29. Phelps, S. M., and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Neural networks predict response biases of female túngara frogs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265:279-285.
30. Pietrewich, A. T., and A. C. Kamil. 1979. Search image formation in the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Science 204:1332-1333.
31. Sandoval, C. P. 1994. The effects of the relative geographic scales of gene flow and selection on morph frequencies in the walking-stick Timema cristinae. Evolution 48:1866-1879.
32. Shreeve, T. G. 1990. Microhabitat use and hindwing phenotype in Hipparchia semele (Lepidoptera, Satyrinae): thermoregulation and background matching. Ecol. Entomol. 15:201-213.
33. Sumida, B. H., A. I. Houston, J. M. McNamara, and W. D. Hamilton. 1990. Genetic algorithms and evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 147: 59-84.
34. Tinturier-Hamelin, E. 1963. Polychromatisme et détermination génétigue du sexe chez l'espèce polytypigue Idotea balthica (Pallas) (Isopode Valvifère). Cah. Biol. Mar. 4:473-591.