Evolutionary constraints on flicker fusion frequency in Lepidoptera

Chatterjee, Payel; Mohan, Umesh; Krishnan, Anand; Sane, Sanjay P.

doi:10.1007/s00359-020-01429-3

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The shorter responses in the nocturnal species at night resulted in the similar characteristics of the impulse response between diurnal and nocturnal species at their preferred activity times. There was a trend of faster temporal characteristics in the diurnal species during the day compared with their nocturnal relatives, similar to that seen in some Hymenoptera (Frederiksen et al, 2008) and Lepidoptera (Chatterjee et al, 2020). This has also been found in mesopelagic crustaceans that exhibit a distinct correlation between eye's temporal resolution and relative intensity differences in their light environments (Frank, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Nocturnal Myrmecia ants have faster temporal resolution at low light levels but lower adaptability compared to diurnal relatives

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Nocturnal Myrmecia ants have faster temporal resolution at low light levels but lower adaptability compared to diurnal relatives

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As we observed important intra-specific variation in CFF, we could also expect that some other species near the 100-Hz threshold were at risk of being impacted. Chatterjee et al (2020) [63] [33] who argued that the actual perception of flicker by animals should be limited-as they found that only diurnal animals were able to perceive flicker-we identified some crepuscular and nocturnal species that could, in fact, be influenced by flickering ALAN. Nonetheless, the actual perception of flicker-in real in-situ conditions-relies on more complex patterns and cannot be deduced solely by comparing species' CFF and light sources flicker frequencies.…”

Section: The Perception Of Artificial Anthropogenic Light Flickermentioning

confidence: 80%

A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies

Lafitte¹,

Sordello²,

Legrand

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Light pollution could represent one of the main drivers behind the current biodiversity erosion. While the effects of many light components on biodiversity have already been studied, the influence of flicker remains poorly understood. The determination of the threshold frequency at which a flickering light is perceived as continuous by a species, usually called the Critical Fusion Frequency (CFF), could thus help further identify the impacts of artificial lighting on animals. Objective This review aimed at answering the following questions: what is the distribution of CFF between species? Are there differences in how flicker is perceived between taxonomic classes? Which species are more at risk of being impacted by artificial lighting flicker? Methods Citations were extracted from three literature databases and were then screened successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Included studies were critically appraised to assess their validity. All relevant data were extracted and analysed to determine the distribution of CFF in the animal kingdom and the influence of experimental designs and species traits on CFF. Results At first, 4881 citations were found. Screening and critical appraisal provided 200 CFF values for 156 species. Reported values of CFF varied from a maximum of between 300 Hz and 500 Hz for the beetle Melanophila acuminata D. to a mean of 0.57 (± 0.08) Hz for the snail Lissachatina fulica B. Insects and birds had higher CFF than all other studied taxa. Irrespective of taxon, nocturnal species had lower CFF than diurnal and crepuscular ones. Conclusions We identified nine crepuscular and nocturnal species that could be impacted by the potential adverse effects of anthropogenic light flicker. We emphasize that there remains a huge gap in our knowledge of flicker perception by animals, which could potentially be hampering our understanding of its impacts on biodiversity, especially in key taxa like bats, nocturnal birds and insects.

show abstract

“…The first step to determine the ecological relevance of flicker fusion camouflage is to measure the potential predator's CFF and to determine if the frequency of pattern alternations in moving prey exceeds that threshold. The flicker fusion frequency threshold has been determined in various animals, including several species of birds, reptiles, fishes, and insects (Woo et al ., 2009; Lisney et al ., 2012; Inger et al ., 2014; Kalinoski et al ., 2014; Chatterjee et al ., 2020; Potier et al ., 2020). These flicker fusion frequency thresholds, coupled with information such as prey band width, prey moving speed, predator viewing distance and lighting conditions, would be valuable inferences for how successfully the blurring effect may occur when natural predator–prey experiments remain difficult to conduct.…”

Section: Concealing Motion Signalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antipredator defences in motion: animals reduce predation risks by concealing or misleading motion signals

Tan,

Zhang,

Stevens

et al. 2024

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motion is a crucial part of the natural world, yet our understanding of how animals avoid predation whilst moving remains rather limited. Although several theories have been proposed for how antipredator defence may be facilitated during motion, there is often a lack of supporting empirical evidence, or conflicting findings. Furthermore, many studies have shown that motion often ‘breaks’ camouflage, as sudden movement can be detected even before an individual is recognised. Whilst some static camouflage strategies may conceal moving animals to a certain extent, more emphasis should be given to other modes of camouflage and related defences in the context of motion (e.g. flicker fusion camouflage, active motion camouflage, motion dazzle, and protean motion). Furthermore, when motion is involved, defence strategies are not necessarily limited to concealment. An animal can also rely on motion to mislead predators with regards to its trajectory, location, size, colour pattern, or even identity. In this review, we discuss the various underlying antipredator strategies and the mechanisms through which they may be linked to motion, conceptualising existing empirical and theoretical studies from two perspectives – concealing and misleading effects. We also highlight gaps in our understanding of these antipredator strategies, and suggest possible methodologies for experimental designs/test subjects (i.e. prey and/or predators) and future research directions.

show abstract

Evolutionary constraints on flicker fusion frequency in Lepidoptera

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Nocturnal Myrmecia ants have faster temporal resolution at low light levels but lower adaptability compared to diurnal relatives

Nocturnal Myrmecia ants have faster temporal resolution at low light levels but lower adaptability compared to diurnal relatives

A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies

Antipredator defences in motion: animals reduce predation risks by concealing or misleading motion signals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About