Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on June 19, 2006
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arl015
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Two, logically distinct but sometimes compatible, mechanisms of camouflage are background-matching and disruptive coloration. In the former, an animal's coloration comprises a random sample of the background, and so target-background discrimination is impeded. In the latter, object or feature recognition is compromised by placing bold, high-contrast colors so that they break up the prey's body into apparently unconnected objects. Recent experimental evidence for the utility of disruptive colors, above and beyond that conferred by background matching, has been based on artificial prey with patterns lacking a plane of symmetry. However, it is plausible that the bilateral symmetry present in natural prey may compromise the efficiency of disruptive coloration, on account of the potency of symmetry as a cue in visual search. In this study, we tested this prediction in the field, by tracking the "survival" under bird predation of artificial mothlike targets placed on oak trees. These had background-matching color patches placed either disruptively or nondisruptively and with or without bilateral symmetry. We found that symmetry reduced the effectiveness of both nondisruptive and disruptive background-matching coloration to a similar degree so that the negative effects of symmetry on concealment are no greater for disruptive than nondisruptive patterns.
Received February 23, 2006
Revised May 17, 2006
Accepted May 17, 2006
Article
The effects of pattern symmetry on detection of disruptive and background-matching coloration
Innes C. Cuthill 1 *,
Martin Stevens 1,
Amy M. M. Windsor 1,
and
Hannah J. Walker 1
Innes C. Cuthill, E-mail: i.cuthill{at}bristol.ac.uk
![]()
Abstract ![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R.T Hanlon, C.-C Chiao, L.M Mathger, A Barbosa, K.C Buresch, and C Chubb Cephalopod dynamic camouflage: bridging the continuum between background matching and disruptive coloration Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 429 - 437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stevens and S. Merilaita Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions Phil Trans R Soc B, February 27, 2009; 364(1516): 481 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stevens, S. A. Castor-Perry, and J. R.F. Price The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2009; 20(1): 96 - 102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stevens, C. J. Hardman, and C. L. Stubbins Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes "eyespots" effective antipredator signals Behav. Ecol., February 13, 2008; (2008) arm162v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Stevens Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration Proc R Soc B, June 22, 2007; 274(1617): 1457 - 1464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Fraser, A. Callahan, D. Klassen, and T. N Sherratt Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability Proc R Soc B, May 22, 2007; 274(1615): 1325 - 1331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Barbosa, L. M. Mathger, C. Chubb, C. Florio, C.-C. Chiao, and R. T. Hanlon Disruptive coloration in cuttlefish: a visual perception mechanism that regulates ontogenetic adjustment of skin patterning J. Exp. Biol., April 1, 2007; 210(7): 1139 - 1147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||



