The role of body shape and edge characteristics on the concealment afforded by potentially disruptive marking

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 104, Issue , 2015, Pages 197-202

  Webster, Richard J ^a   Godin, Jean Guy J ^a   Sherratt, Thomas N ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Antipredator; Background matching; Crypsis; Disruptive coloration; Edge detection; Object recognition; Predation

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; LEPIDOPTERA;

EID: 84928683905     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.027     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Beck J., Prazdny K., Ivry R. The perception of transparency with achromatic colors. Perception & Psychophysics 1984, 35:407-422.
2. Behrens R.R. Camoupedia 2009, Bobolink Books, Dysart, IA.
3. Bell J., Hancock S., Kingdom F.A.A., Peirce J.W. Global shape processing: which parts form the whole?. Journal of Vision 2010, 10:1-13.
4. Betts C.R., Wootton R.J. Wing shape and flight behaviour in butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea): a preliminary analysis. Journal of Experimental Biology 1988, 138:271-288.
5. Cott H.B. Adaptive coloration in animals 1940, Methuen, London, U.K.
6. Cuthill I.C., Partridge J.C., Bennett A.T.D., Church S.C., Hart N.S., Hunt S. Ultraviolet vision in birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2000, 29:159-214.
7. Cuthill I.C., Székely A. Coincident disruptive coloration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 364:489-496.
8. Cuthill I.C., Stevens M., Sheppard J., Maddocks T., Parraga C.A., Troscianko T.S. Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 2005, 434:72-74.
9. Cuthill I.C., Stevens M., Windsor A.M.M., Walker H.J. The effects of pattern symmetry on detection of disruptive and background-matching coloration. Behavioral Ecology 2006, 17:828-832.
10. Dayton G.H., Saenz D., Baum K.A., Langerhans R.B., DeWitt T.J. Body shape, burst speed and escape behavior of larval anurans. Oikos 2005, 111:582-591.
11. Delvenne J.F., Dent K. Distinctive shapes benefit short-term memory for color associations, but not for color. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:1024-1031.
12. Elder J.H., Velisavljevic L. Cue dynamics underlying rapid detection of animals in natural scenes. Journal of Vision 2009, 9:1-20.
13. Endler J.A. Progressive background in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1984, 22:187-231.
14. Fraser S., Callahan A., Klassen D., Sherratt T.N. Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007, 274:1325-1331.
15. Fründ I., Elder J. Statistical coding of natural closed contours. Journal of Vision 2013, 13:119.
16. Geisler W.S., Perry J.S., Super B.J., Gallogly D.P. Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research 2001, 41:711-724.
17. Handfield L. Guide des papillons du QuébecLe 1999, Broquet, Saint-Constant, QC, Canada.
18. Johnsen S. Hidden in plain sight: the ecology and physiology of organismal transparency. Biological Bulletin 2001, 201:301-318.
19. Langerhans R.B. Morphology, performance, fitness: functional insight into a post-Pleistocene radiation of mosquitofish. Biology Letters 2009, 5:488-491.
20. Liebe S., Fischer E., Logothetis N.K., Rainer G. Color and shape interactions in the recognition of natural scenes by human and monkey observers. Journal of Vision 2009, 9:1-16.
21. Lloyd-Jones T.J., Gehrke J., Lauder J. Animal recognition and eye movements the contribution of outline contour and local feature information. Experimental Psychology 2010, 57:117-125.
22. Lloyd-Jones T.J., Luckhurst L. Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:489-498.
23. Lundvall D., Svanback R., Persson L., Bystrom P. Size-dependent predation in piscivores: interactions between predator foraging and prey avoidance abilities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1999, 56:1285-1292.
24. Mathger L.M., Chiao C.C., Barbosa A., Buresch K.C., Kaye S., Hanlon R.T. Disruptive coloration elicited on controlled natural substrates in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Journal of Experimental Biology 2007, 210:2657-2666.
25. Mcfall-Ngai M.J. Crypsis in the pelagic environment. American Zoologist 1990, 30:175-188.
26. Merilaita S. Crypsis through disruptive coloration in an isopod. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1998, 265:1059-1064.
27. Merilaita S. Visual background complexity facilitates the evolution of camouflage. Evolution 2003, 57:1248-1254.
28. Merilaita S., Lind J. Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2005, 272:665-670.
29. Merilaita S., Tuomi J., Jormalainen V. Optimization of cryptic coloration in heterogeneous habitats. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1999, 67:151-161.
30. Nuernberg S., Aberhan M., Krause R.A. Evolutionary and ecological patterns in body size, shape, and ornamentation in the Jurassic bivalve Chlamys (Chlamys) textoria (Schlotheim, 1820). Fossil Record 2012, 15:27-39.
31. Palmer S.E. Vision science: Photons to phenomenology 1999, MIT Press, Boston, MA.
32. Panis S., Wagemans J. Time-course contingencies in perceptual organization and identification of fragmented object outlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:661-687.
33. Ruxton G.D., Sherratt T.N., Speed M. Avoiding attack: The evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry 2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
34. Schaefer H.M., Stobbe N. Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273:2427-2432.
35. Singh M., Anderson B.L. Perceptual assignment of opacity to translucent surfaces: the role of image blur. Perception 2002, 31:531-552.
36. Singh M., Anderson B.L. Toward a perceptual theory of transparency. Psychological Review 2002, 109:492-519.
37. Smith H.M. Shape variation in Australian Poltys species (Araneae: Araneidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 2003, 12:355-360.
38. Soto F.A., Wasserman E.A. Visual object categorization in birds and primates: integrating behavioral, neurobiological, and computational evidence within a 'general process' framework. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 2012, 12:220-240.
39. Stevens M., Cuthill I.C. Disruptive coloration, crypsis and edge detection in early visual processing. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273:2141-2147.
40. Stevens M., Cuthill I.C., Windsor A.M.M., Walker H.J. Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273:2433-2438.
41. Stevens M., Winney I.S., Cantor A., Graham J. Outline and surface disruption in animal camouflage. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 276:781-786.
42. Thayer A.H. Concealing coloration in the animal kingdom: An exposition of the laws of disguise through color and pattern 1909, Macmillan, London, U.K.
43. Tyrrell L.P., Butler S.R., Yorzinski J.L., Fernández-Juricic E. Anovel system for bi-ocular eye-tracking in vertebrates with laterally placed eyes. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2014, 5:1070-1077.
44. Van Buskirk J., McCollum S.A. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2000, 13:336-347.
45. Webster R.J., Callahan A., Godin J.G.J., Sherratt T.N. Behaviourally mediated crypsis in two nocturnal moths with contrasting appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 364:503-510.
46. Webster R.J., Hassall C., Herdman C.M., Godin J.-G.J., Sherratt T.N. Disruptive camouflage impairs object recognition. Biology Letters 2013, 9:20130501. 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0501.
47. Yorzinski J.L., Patricelli G.L., Babcock J.S., Pearson J.M., Platt M.L. Through their eyes: selective attention in peahens during courtship. Journal of Experimental Biology 2013, 216:3035-3046.