Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on July 14, 2004
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(1):25-29; doi:10.1093/beheco/arh130
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Specific color sensitivities of prey and predator explain camouflage in different visual systems
aMuséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Département d'Ecologie et de Gestion de la Biodiversité, CNRS UMR 5176, 91800 Brunoy, France, and bInstitut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l'Insecte, Université de Tours, CNRS UMR 6035, F-37200 Tours, France
Address correspondence to M. Théry. E-mail: thery{at}mnhn.fr.
Received 4 February 2004; revised 14 April 2004; accepted 18 May 2004.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In situations of aggressive mimicry, predators adapt their color to that of the substrate on which they sit for hunting, a behavior that is presumed to hide them from prey as well as from their own predators. Females of few crab-spider species encounter such situations when lying on flowers to ambush pollinators. To evaluate the efficiency of spider camouflage on flowers, we measured by spectroradiometry adult female Thomisus onustus and marguerite daisies, Leucanthemum vulgare. We compared chromatic contrast (color used for short-range detection) of each pair of spider and flower to detection thresholds computed in the visual systems of both Hymenopteran prey and passerine bird predator. We also computed achromatic contrast (brightness) used for long-range detection. In both visual systems, each individual spider was efficiently matching the precise color of the flower center on which it was hunting. Being significantly darker than flowers, crab-spiders could in theory be detected at long range by either predator or prey using achromatic contrast. However, long-range detection is unlikely, owing to small spider size. Spiders also generated significant chromatic and achromatic contrasts to both Hymenoptera and bird when moving on flower periphery. Our study is the first to identify which photoreceptors of both prey and predator are involved in camouflage. The analysis suggests more research on bird predation and vision to determine to which extent bird predators effectively constrain spider crypsis.
Key words: bird, camouflage, crab-spider, Hymenoptera, spectrometry.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In animal communication systems, color displays are understood as resulting from a compromise between conspicuousness to conspecifics and crypsis to predators or prey. A different case occurs when a predator uses aggressive mimicry to hide both from prey and from his own predator. However, color display as well as camouflage is likely to involve visual signals, ambient light, and/or photoreceptors notably active in the near ultraviolet to which humans are not sensitive (UV-B 320–400 nm; Cuthill et al., 2000
). Therefore, measuring the efficiency of visual camouflage requires objective quantification of coloration (Bennett et al., 1994). Recent studies of color contrast on flowers used spectroradiometry and physiological models of color vision instead of subjective human vision, and considered two types of visual contrast (see Chittka, 2001; Heiling et al., 2003; Théry and Casas, 2002): (1) brightness contrast, used for long-range or small-target detection, is generally considered as relayed at short distance by (2) color contrast (Osorio et al., 1999a,b; Spaethe et al., 2001). For a honeybee approaching a flower, brightness contrast is relayed by color contrast when the target subtends an area of at least 15° (a flower measuring 26 cm in diameter seen from the distance of 1 m; Spaethe et al., 2001). This distance has not been measured in birds, but achromatic contrast is also known to be used by domestic chicks to identify small objects and patterns, whereas chromatic contrast is used to detect larger targets (Osorio et al., 1999a,b).
Females of few crab-spider species (Thomisidae) adapt their entire body color to that of flowers on which they sit for hunting, a behavior that is presumed to hide them from predators and from visiting pollinators that constitute their main prey (Oxford and Gillespie, 1998). This has been confirmed for two species: Misumena vatia, seen by Hymenopteran prey (Chittka, 2001), and Thomisus onustus, seen by both Hymenopteran prey and bird predator (Théry and Casas, 2002). To date, however, there is no explanation on how these spiders succeed in fooling simultaneously such different types of visual systems.
In this article, we investigated the coloration of crab-spiders, Thomisus onustus, seen by Hymenopteran prey and insectivorous bird predators on flowers of the marguerite daisy, Leucanthemum vulgare (Asteridae). To evaluate individual camouflage efficiency, we measured chromatic and achromatic contrasts of each pair of spider and flower and determined short- and long-range detection abilities in both visual systems. Our goal was to add to previous studies that only considered mean but not individual values of contrast (Chittka, 2001; Théry and Casas, 2002). In addition, we analyzed excitation values of prey and predator photoreceptors to explain how spiders managed to appear simultaneously cryptic with respect to color in different visual systems.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Spider and flower collection
We collected 10 adult female crab-spiders, Thomisus onustus, sitting on the yellow central part of 10 flowers of Leucanthemum vulgare. No female spider was found on the white peripheral part of that flower species. All individuals were collected with their flower in the same meadow at Chambray-lès-Tours, France (47°20'18'' N, 00°42'52'' E), from 25 May–1 June 2001. Each spider was kept in a closed plastic box with the flower it was sitting on and brought to the laboratory at Tours to be measured the following day. When arriving at the laboratory, spiders were fed with wild Drosophila melanogaster, and the flower was lightly sprayed with water.
Spectroradiometric measurements
We measured spider and flower colors with a spectroradiometer (Ocean Optics S2000 calibrated from 200–850 nm). Illumination was provided with a deuterium-halogen lamp (DH-2000 emitting from 215–1500 nm) connected with a 1.5-mm-diameter sensor. Spiders were briefly anesthetized by using a piece of cotton wool impregnated with three drops of ether, and placed on an adjustable mounting stand. Three reflectance spectra of both abdomen and cephalothorax were taken at 90° relative to a 99% reflectance standard (300–700 nm, Spectralon) and to the dark current. A reference and dark current calibration were taken before measuring each spider. For each individual, the mean reflectance spectrum of abdomen and cephalothorax measurements was used in statistical analyses. Flowers were laid flat on the mounting stand, and three reflectance spectra of both yellow center and white periphery were measured by using the same protocol. Although all females were found at the flower center, we also studied their camouflage on flower periphery because they sometimes move rapidly within and between flowers in case prey is visually detected (Chittka, 2001; data not shown). Mean reflectance spectra of each flower center and periphery were used in analyses.
Modeling visual systems and contrasts
We proceeded as Théry and Casas (2002), but used blue tit, Parus caeruleus, instead of Pekin robin, Leiothrix lutea, spectral sensitivities. This was motivated by the presence of blue tits, but not Pekin robins, in the meadows around Tours. In addition, blue tit UV-B photoreceptors peaking at 371 nm can be considered as representative of UV-B perception for a tetrachromatic passerine bird because most passerine birds are maximally sensitive to UV-B around 370 nm (Hart, 2001), whereas Pekin robins are maximally sensitive in the UV-B around 355 nm (Maier and Bowmaker, 1993), which is the shortest extreme bird visual sensitivity computed to date (Hart, 2001). We thus calculated each color locus of spiders and flowers seen by a tetrachromatic passeriform insectivorous bird by using relative photon catches spectra of the four blue tit photoreceptors, taking into account visual pigment absorbance, oil droplet transmittance, and ocular media transmittance (Hart, 2001; Hart et al., 2000). Therefore, we computed the sensitivity factor R for each photoreceptor as:
 | (1) |
) is the spectral reflection function (the percentage of incident light reflected at each wavelength by the measured surface) of the average of a sample of 50 green foliage backgrounds collected in a meadow, and S() is the spectral sensitivity function of the receptor in question (the relative sensitivity of the photoreceptor to each wavelength). D() is the illuminating daylight spectrum (the number of photons present in daylight at each wavelength) CIE D65 because spiders were active in normal daylight. We then computed effective quantum flux P (the fraction of the total number of photons present in the incident light at each wavelength which are reflected by the measured surface and perceived by the photoreceptor) for each spectrum in the respective photoreceptor as follows:
 | (2) |
) is the spectral reflection function of spiders or flowers. We assumed that photoreceptors display half their maximum response when stimulated by the light reflected from the adaptation background. We normalized the maximum excitation Emax of each photoreceptor to unity, and calculated the physiological receptor voltage signals EUV, EBlue, EGreen, and ERED as
 | (3) |
), as follows:
 | (4) |
 | (5) |
 | (6) |
St
 | (7) |
For Hymenopteran color vision, we calculated each color locus using the model of Chittka et al. (1994) with spectral sensitivity functions of standard photoreceptors for trichromatic Hymenoptera (Peitsch et al., 1992). We calculated sensitivity factor R, effective quantum flux P, and physiological receptor voltage signals EUV, EBlue, and EGreen, respectively from Equations 1, 2, and 3. We obtained coordinates of each spectrum in the color hexagon using receptor excitations as
 | (8) |
 | (9) |
St
 | (10) |
The computed color contrasts were compared to optimal discrimination thresholds of bird and Hymenoptera in their particular color space. For the most comprehensively studied bird, the pigeon Columbia livia (Kelber et al., 2003), color discrimination is a function of wavelength with an optimal resolution of 4 nm around 540 nm (Neumeyer, 1991). The minimal Euclidean distance of color contrast discrimination was computed as the minimal distance generated between two normal spectra separated by 4 nm in the blue tit color tetrahedron, that is, a contrast threshold of 0.06. We proceeded similarly in the color hexagon of Hymenoptera by computing the minimal color distance allowing to discriminate two object spectra differing by 5 nm, which is the optimal resolution around 500 nm for a honeybee (von Helversen, 1972). This distance was measured as 0.05 (Théry and Casas, 2002). A color contrast of 0.1 is considered as equivalent to about 70% discriminability for bees (Chittka, 1996, 2001). For each pair of spider and flower, computed color contrasts were compared to the Hymenopteran prey and bird predator discrimination thresholds, providing measures of individual color mimicry in both visual systems.
Honeybees and birds are known to use achromatic (brightness) contrast at long range or to detect small targets (Osorio et al., 1999a,b; Spaethe et al., 2001). At longer distances, bees use green receptors, whereas birds use double-cones, which combine absorbance spectra of the medium- and long-wavelengths sensitive photoreceptors (Hart et al., 2000; Spaethe et al., 2001). Achromatic contrasts, computed as the values of green or double-cone photoreceptor signals when excited by spiders divided by the corresponding values for flowers, were thus compared with the value of 1.0 predicted for equal brightness. Therefore, values of achromatic contrast higher than 1.0 indicate that spiders are brighter than are flowers, values lower than 1.0 that spiders are darker than are flowers.
Statistical procedures
All statistical analyses were performed with version 9.01 of Systat (SPSS, 1998). We tested the frequency distribution of each variable for normality, and used normal log-transformed data. Each individual value of chromatic contrast of a spider on its flower was compared with detection thresholds of both prey and predator using one-sample t tests with the Bonferroni correction (Rice, 1989). We compared individual values of achromatic contrasts to the value predicted for equal brightness by using the same statistics.
For each visual system, we examined if the excitation of each photoreceptor by spider reflectance could explain chromatic contrasts of individual spiders on "their" flowers by using one-way ANOVA models. In both ANOVAs, chromatic contrasts generated by spiders on flower centers and peripheries were dependent variables, and Hymenopteran or bird photoreceptor excitations were independent variables. We are aware that color perception notably depends on combined photoreceptor excitations and not on individual receptor signal (Kelber et al., 2003; Peitsch et al., 1992; Vorobyev et al., 1998). Despite this limitation, specific photoreceptor excitations are regularly used in studies of color camouflage to determine if a particular receptor signal is more critical than another to allow efficient color mimicry or display (see Chittka, 2001; Heiling et al., 2003).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Individual visual contrasts
There is appreciable variation of color between flowers (mean ± SE of flower centers coordinates in the Hymenopteran color hexagon: x = 0.8054 ± 0.0912, y = 0.0030 ± 0.0252; in the bird color tetrahedron: x = 0.0030 ± 0.0007, y = –0.8265 ± 0.1128, z = 0.2930 ± 0.0445), and spider individually adjust their color accordingly (Table 1). Chromatic contrasts of individual crab-spiders on flower centers do not significantly differ from detection thresholds of either Hymenoptera or bird (Table 1). Therefore, female spiders are unlikely to be detected at short distance on flower centers by either Hymenopteran prey or bird predator. On the contrary, color contrasts of individual spiders on flower peripheries strongly exceed detection thresholds of both Hymenoptera and bird (Table 1). As a consequence, both prey and predator would easily detect spiders at short range on flower periphery. This color contrast on flower periphery may well be perceived by spiders, as we observed them invariably at the center of flowers.
|
With reference to achromatic contrast perceived by the visual systems of both Hymenopteran prey and bird predator, spiders are significantly darker than are yellow flower centers (Figure 1 and Table 1). Because whitish flower periphery is brighter than is yellow flower center (Figure 1), achromatic contrast would be stronger if spiders were seen on flower periphery than on flower center. At long range, both predator and prey using achromatic contrast would in theory detect spiders on either flower center or periphery.
|
Color-receptor excitation values and chromatic contrasts
When the Hymenopteran visual system is excited by spiders' reflectance spectra, low chromatic contrast on yellow flower centers depends on the relative excitation signals of the three photoreceptor types sensitive to blue, green, and UV-B wavelengths (Table 2). Even though this camouflage is efficient in the bird visual system (Table 1), none of the excitation signals of the four bird photoreceptors explain the efficient color matching (Table 2). On the contrary, high chromatic contrast of spiders on whitish flower periphery is well explained by excitation signals of two birds photoreceptors, in the red and green wavelengths, whereas Hymenopteran photoreceptor signals do not explain chromatic contrast on this flower part (Table 2).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Visual contrasts
Each individual female Thomisus onustus is highly cryptic at short range on the flower center where it is hunting, when both Hymenopteran prey and bird predator use chromatic contrast to detect color patterns. This efficient camouflage, here demonstrated for individual crab-spiders sitting on yellow corollas of marguerite daisies, reinforces previous results obtained with mean values of chromatic contrast of the same crab-spider species seen by both predator and prey hunting on pink corollas of Mentha spicata and yellow corollas of Senecio jacobea (Théry and Casas, 2002
). Color mimicry has also been shown using mean values of chromatic contrast of females Misumena vatia seen by bees hunting on white Chaerophyllum temulum (Chittka, 2001). This efficient camouflage is confirmed by recent field experiments on females Misumena vatia, notably showing that Hymenopteran prey do not detect crab-spiders at their first visit on flowers (Dukas and Morse, 2003). Individual color camouflage appears efficient for bird predators, which is consistent with the particular danger represented for flower crab-spiders by sight-hunting predators (Oxford and Gillespie, 1998).
Recent studies have shown that the minimum separable distance in bee color space may be smaller than what has been previously suggested (Chittka et al., 2003; Dyer and Chittka, 2004). In essence, if bees are penalized for errors, they might be able to detect much smaller color differences than those taken into account in our model. The predation risk encountered by bees when visiting flowers could indeed induce finer color discrimination than expected from previous laboratory experiments. However, this minimum color distance separable by bees is presently unknown.
When considering achromatic (brightness) contrast used for discrimination from larger distances, females are darker than flowers and thus in theory conspicuous to both prey and predator. However, because of their small size (about 8 mm maximal body length without legs for adult females; Jones, 2001), it is unlikely that either Hymenoptera or bird can indeed detect female Thomisus onustus at long range. For example, honeybees require a minimum visual angle of 5° to detect a stimulus presenting chromatic and achromatic contrasts (Giurfa et al., 1996, 1997), an angle that would not be filled by a crab-spider hiding at more than 10 cm from the bee. Small size and the fact that color contrast is used independently from brightness contrast most likely explain why female crab-spiders appear highly cryptic on the mimicked flowers. How crab-spiders perceive and adjust their body coloration to that of flowers remains unknown and is presently studied.
Camouflage in two visual systems
Our results indicate that photoreceptors of both Hymenopteran prey and bird predator are differentially involved in detecting the degree of camouflage of crab-spiders on different parts of the same flower. All three types of Hymenopteran photoreceptors appear to explain low color contrast of crab-spiders at the center of marguerite daisies, whereas the two bird photoreceptors sensitive to long and medium wavelengths are involved in detecting higher color contrast of spiders on flower periphery. The relative constraints of the two visual systems appear complementary at spectral scale, with Hymenopteran photoreceptors explaining spider coloration from UV-B to green wavelengths, and bird photoreceptors from green to red. However, the medium- and long-wavelengths sensitive photoreceptors of birds, here identified in detecting chromatic contrast on flower periphery, are also combined as double cones involved in detection of achromatic contrast (Hart et al., 2000). Therefore, an alternative explanation to the contribution of bird photoreceptors in the detection of chromatic contrast at flower periphery may simply be related to the use of double cones for achromatic contrast. More research on spider predation and respective use of chromatic and achromatic contrasts by birds will be necessary to determine to which extent bird predators are constraining spider camouflage.
Integrating specific photoreceptor peak sensitivities and type numbers in both predator and prey visual systems was the aim of the present study, and is a requisite for understanding the bottom-up and top-down evolutionary forces acting on animal coloration. We also demonstrated that this approach is necessary but insufficient to explain the efficient mimicry of spiders located in flower centers in the bird vision system. Indeed, optimal color discrimination always differs from photoreceptor maximal absorbance (Chittka, 1992; Chittka and Waser, 1997). This has also been studied thoroughly in the pigeon (see Bowmaker et al., 1997; Neumeyer, 1991), an approach that needs now to be extended to many other organisms and framed in ecological settings of relevance.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Nathan Hart for kindly providing blue tit photoreceptors photon catches. This study was funded by the Institut Fédératif d'Ecologie Fondamentale et Appliquée (IFR 101), by the Groupement de Recherche en Ecologie Comportementale (CNRS GDR 2155), and by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle through UMR 5176 and USM 301.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
M. Debut is now at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherches Avicoles, F-37380 Nouzilly, France.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, and Norris KJ, 1994. Sexual selection and the mismeasure of color. Am Nat 144:848–860.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Bowmaker JK, Heath LA, Wilkie SE, and Hunt DM, 1997. Visual pigments and oil droplets from six classes of photoreceptor in the retinas of birds. Vision Res 37:2183–2194.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Chittka L, 1992. The color hexagon: a chromaticity diagram based on photoreceptor excitations as a generalized representation of colour opponency. J Comp Physiol A 170:533–543.
Chittka L, 1996. Optimal sets of colour receptors and opponent processes for coding of natural objects in insect vision. J Theor Biol 181:179–196.[CrossRef]
Chittka L, 2001. Camouflage of predatory crab spiders on flowers and colour perception of bees (Aranida: Thomisidae / Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol Gen 25:181–187.
Chittka L, Dyer AG, Bock F, and Dornhaus A, 2003. Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature 424:388.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chittka L, Schimda A, Troje N, and Menzel R, 1994. Ultraviolet as a component of flower reflections, and the colour perception of Hymenoptera. Vision Res 34:1489–1508.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Chittka L, and Waser NM, 1997. Why red flowers are not invisible for bees. Israel J Plant Sci 45:169–183.
Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Bennett ATD, Church SC, Hart NS, and Hunt S, 2000. Ultraviolet vision in birds. In: Advances in the study of behavior, vol. 29 (Slater PJB, Rosenblatt JS, Snowdon CT, Roper TJ, eds). San Diego: Academic Press; 159–214.
Dukas R, and Morse DH, 2003. Crab spiders affect flower visitation by bees. Oikos 101:157–163.[CrossRef]
Dyer AG, and Chittka L, 2004: Biological significance of discriminating between similar colours in spectrally variable illumination: bumblebees as a study case. J Comp Physiol A 190:105–114.[CrossRef]
Giurfa M, Vorobyev M, Brandt R, Posner B, and Menzel R, 1997. Discrimination of coloured stimuli by honeybees: alternative use of achromatic and chromatic signals. J Comp Physiol A 180:235–243.[CrossRef]
Giurfa M, Vorobyev M, Kevan P, and Menzel R, 1996. Detection of coloured stimuli by honeybees: minimum visual angles and receptor-specific contrasts. J Comp Physiol A 178:699–709.
Goldsmith TH, 1990. Optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes. Q Rev Biol 65:281–322.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hart NS, 2001. The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retinal Eye Res 20:675–703.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, and Bennett ATD, 2000. 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.). J Comp Physiol A 186:375–387.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heiling AM, Herberstein ME, and Chittka L, 2003. Crab-spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature 421:334.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jones D, 2001. Guide des araignées et des opilions d'Europe. Delachaux et Niestlé, Paris.
Kelber A, Vorobyev M, and Osorio D, 2003. Animal colour vision: behavioural tests and physiological concepts. Biol Rev 78:81–118.[Medline]
Maier EJ, and Bowmaker JK, 1993. Colour vision in the Passeriform bird, Leiothrix lutea: correlation of visual pigment absorbance and oil droplet transmission with spectral sensitivity. J Comp Physiol A 172:295–301.[CrossRef]
Neumeyer C, 1991. Evolution of color vision. In: Vision and visual dysfunction (Cronley-Dillon JR, Gregory R L, eds). London: Macmillan; 284–305.
Osorio D, Miklósi A, and Gonda Z, 1999. Visual ecology and perception of coloration patterns by domestic chicks. Evol Ecol 13:673–689.[CrossRef]
Osorio D, Vorobyev M, and Jones CD, 1999. Colour vision of domestic chicks. J Exp Biol 202:2951–2959.[Abstract]
Oxford GS, and Gillespie RG, 1998. Evolution and ecology of spider coloration. Ann Rev Entomol 43:619–643.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Peitsch D, Fietz A, Hertel H, de Souza J, Ventura DF, and Menzel R, 1992. The spectral input systems of Hymenopteran insects and their receptor-based colour vision. J Comp Physiol A 170:23–40.[Medline]
Rice WR, 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Spaethe J, Tautz J, and Chittka L, 2001. Visual constraints in foraging bumblebees: flower size and color affect search time and flight behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3898–3903.
SPSS, 1998. Systat 9. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Théry M, and Casas J, 2002. Predator and prey views of spider camouflage. Nature 415:133.[Medline]
von Helversen O, 1972. Zur spectrale unterschiedsempfindlichkeit der honigbiene. J Comp Physiol 80:439–472.[CrossRef]
Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett ATD, Marshall NJ, and Cuthill IC, 1998. Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol A 183:621–633.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. Tan and D. Li Detritus decorations of an orb-weaving spider, Cyclosa mulmeinensis (Thorell): for food or camouflage? J. Exp. Biol., June 15, 2009; 212(12): 1832 - 1839. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. L Cheney, C. Skogh, N. S Hart, and N. J. Marshall Mimicry, colour forms and spectral sensitivity of the bluestriped fangblenny, Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos Proc R Soc B, May 7, 2009; 276(1662): 1565 - 1573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. C Ioannou and J. Krause Interactions between background matching and motion during visual detection can explain why cryptic animals keep still Biol Lett, April 23, 2009; 5(2): 191 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Thery and J. Casas The multiple disguises of spiders: web colour and decorations, body colour and movement Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 471 - 480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Stobbe, M. Dimitrova, S. Merilaita, and H. M. Schaefer Chromaticity in the UV/blue range facilitates the search for achromatically background-matching prey in birds Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 511 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Stobbe and H. M. Schaefer Enhancement of chromatic contrast increases predation risk for striped butterflies Proc R Soc B, July 7, 2008; 275(1642): 1535 - 1541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Thery, S. Pincebourde, and F. Feer Dusk light environment optimizes visual perception of conspecifics in a crepuscular horned beetle Behav. Ecol., March 4, 2008; (2008) arn024v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. C. Insausti and J. Casas The functional morphology of color changing in a spider: development of ommochrome pigment granules J. Exp. Biol., March 1, 2008; 211(5): 780 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Loyau, D. Gomez, B. Moureau, M. Thery, N. S. Hart, M. S. Jalme, A. T.D. Bennett, and G. Sorci Iridescent structurally based coloration of eyespots correlates with mating success in the peacock Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2007; 18(6): 1123 - 1131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Schaefer and N. Stobbe Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching Proc R Soc B, October 7, 2006; 273(1600): 2427 - 2432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Schaefer, D. J. Levey, V. Schaefer, and M. L. Avery The role of chromatic and achromatic signals for fruit detection by birds Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2006; 17(5): 784 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dreiss, M. Richard, F. Moyen, J. White, A.P. Moller, and E. Danchin Sex ratio and male sexual characters in a population of blue tits, Parus caeruleus Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Heiling, K. Cheng, L. Chittka, A. Goeth, and M. E. Herberstein The role of UV in crab spider signals: effects on perception by prey and predators J. Exp. Biol., October 15, 2005; 208(20): 3925 - 3931. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J Bruce, A. M Heiling, and M. E Herberstein Spider signals: are web decorations visible to birds and bees? Biol Lett, September 22, 2005; 1(3): 299 - 302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Heiling, L. Chittka, K. Cheng, and M. E. Herberstein Colouration in crab spiders: substrate choice and prey attraction J. Exp. Biol., May 15, 2005; 208(10): 1785 - 1792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||