Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on May 28, 2007
Behavioral Ecology 2007 18(4):769-775; doi:10.1093/beheco/arm039
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Animal camouflage: compromise or specialize in a 2 patch-type environment?
a School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK b Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK c Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK
Address correspondence to M. Stevens. E-mail: ms726{at}cam.ac.uk.
| Abstract |
|---|
Many animals possess camouflage markings that reduce the risk of detection by visually hunting predators. A key aspect of camouflage involves mimicking the background against which the animal is viewed. However, most animals experience a wide variety of backgrounds and cannot change their external appearance to match each selectively. We investigate whether such animals should adopt camouflage specialized with respect to one background or adopt a compromise between the attributes of multiple backgrounds. We do this using a model consisting of predators that hunt prey in patches of 2 different types, where prey adopt the camouflage that minimizes individual risk of predation. We show that the optimal strategy of the prey is affected by a number of factors, including the relative frequencies of the patch types, the travel time of predators between patches, the mean prey number in each patch type, and the trade-off function between the levels of crypsis in the patch types. We find evidence that both specialist and compromise strategies of prey camouflage are favored under different model parameters, indicating that optimal concealment may not be as straightforward as previously thought.
Key words: background matching, camouflage, compromise crypsis, optimal foraging, specialization.
Received 7 January 2007; revised 4 April 2007; accepted 4 April 2007.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Dimitrova, N. Stobbe, H. M. Schaefer, and S. Merilaita Concealed by conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds Proc R Soc B, May 22, 2009; 276(1663): 1905 - 1910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stevens and S. Merilaita Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 423 - 427. [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] |
||||
![]() |
T. Caro Contrasting coloration in terrestrial mammals Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 537 - 548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||

