Hide and seek: Properties of prey and background patterns affect prey detection by blue tits

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 402-408

  Dimitrova, Marina ^a   Merilaita, Sami ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Behavioural and Evolutionary Ecology Group Environmental Biology Department of Biosciences   (Finland)

Author keywords

Camouflage; Crypsis; Detection; Predation; Prey coloration; Prey search

Indexed keywords

AVIFAUNA; CRYPSIS; DETECTION METHOD; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HABITAT SELECTION; MIMICRY; PASSERINE; PREDATION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY AVAILABILITY; PREY LOCATION;

EID: 84898724437     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/art130     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Blaisdell AP, Cook RG. 2005. Two-item same-different concept learning in pigeons. Learn Behav. 33:67-77.
2. Bond AB, Kamil AC. 2002. Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature. 415:609-613.
3. Bond AB, Kamil AC. 2006. Spatial heterogeneity, predator cognition, and the evolution of color polymorphism in virtual prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:3214-3219.
4. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Maddocks T, Párraga CA, Troscianko TS. 2005. Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature. 434:72-74.
5. Desimone R, Duncan J. 1995. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci. 18:193-222.
6. Dimitrova M, Merilaita S. 2010. Prey concealment: visual background complexity and prey contrast distribution. Behav Ecol. 21:176-181.
7. Dimitrova M, Merilaita S. 2012. Prey pattern regularity and background complexity affect detectability of background-matching prey. Behav Ecol. 23:384-390.
8. Dimitrova M, Stobbe N, Schaefer HM, Merilaita S. 2009. Concealed by conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds. Proc Biol Sci. 276:1905-1910.
9. Dukas R, Clark CW. 1995. Searching for cryptic prey: a dynamic model. Ecology. 76:1320-1326.
10. Duncan J, Humphreys GW. 1989. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev. 96:433-458.
11. Gendron RP, Staddon JER. 1984. A laboratory simulation of foraging behavior: the effect of search rate on the probability of detecting prey. Am Nat. 124:407-415.
12. Hanlon R. 2007. Cephalopod dynamic camouflage. Curr Biol. 17:R400-R404.
13. Kelman EJ, Baddeley RJ, Shohet AJ, Osorio D. 2007. Perception of visual texture and the expression of disruptive camouflage by the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Proc Biol Sci. 274:1369-1375.
14. Kjernsmo K, Merilaita S. 2012. Background choice as an anti-predator strategy: the roles of background matching and visual complexity in the habitat choice of the least killifish. Proc Biol Sci. 279:4192-4198.
15. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A, Mappes J. 2001. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey. Proc Biol Sci. 268:357-361.
16. Mather G. 2006. Foundations of perception. Hove (UK): Psychology Press.
17. Merilaita S. 2003. Visual background complexity facilitates the evolution of camouflage. Evolution. 57:1248-1254.
18. Merilaita S, Dimitrova M. 2014. Accuracy of background matching and prey detection: predation by blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) indicates intense selection for highly matching prey colour pattern. Funct Ecol. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12248
19. Merilaita S, Lind J. 2006. Great tits (Parus major) searching for artificial prey: implications for cryptic coloration and symmetry. Behav Ecol. 17:84-87.
20. Merilaita S, Schaefer HM, Dimitrova M. 2013. What is camouflage through distractive markings? Behav Ecol. 24:e1272-e1273.
21. Merilaita S, Stevens M. 2011. Crypsis through background matching. In: Stevens M, Merilaita S, editors. Animal camouflage: mechanisms and function. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. p. 17-33.
22. Merilaita S, Tullberg BS. 2005. Constrained camouflage facilitates the evolution of conspicuous warning coloration. Evolution. 59:38-45.
23. Pietrewicz AT, Kamil AC. 1979. Search Image Formation in the Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Science. 204:1332-1333.
24. Ramachandran VS, Tyler CW, Gregory RL, Rogers-Ramachandran D, Duensing S, Pillsbury C, Ramachandran C. 1996. Rapid adaptive camouflage in tropical flounders. Nature. 379:815-818.
25. Rowland HM, Cuthill IC, Harvey IF, Speed MP, Ruxton GD. 2008. Can't tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland. Proc Biol Sci. 275:2539-2545.
26. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TM, Speed MP. 2004. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman.
28. Stevens M, Merilaita S. 2009. Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 364:423-427.
29. Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connolly Y, Troscianko T, Cuthill IC. 2007. Field experiments on the effectiveness of 'eyespots' as predator deterrents. Anim Behav. 74:1215-1227
30. Wertheim AH, Hooge IT, Krikke K, Johnson A. 2006. How important is lateral masking in visual search? Exp Brain Res. 170:387-402.
31. Zylinski S, Osorio D, Shohet AJ. 2009. Cuttlefish camouflage: context-dependent body pattern use during motion. Proc Biol Sci. 276:3963-3969.