Human vision fails to distinguish widespread sexual dichromatism among sexually “monochromatic” birds

Abstract

Historical scenarios of evolution of avian plumage coloration have been called into question with the discoveries that most birds can see UV light (which normal humans cannot), and that UV-reflecting plumages are widespread in birds. Several examples of sexual dichromatism not detectable with human visual capabilities suggest that our categorizations of plumages as sexually mono-or dichromatic might often be incorrect. Nonetheless, given the limited taxonomic scope of those examples, the vast majority of sexually monochromatic birds are still treated as such without question in avian research. Herein, I show that >90% of 139 species, in a broad sampling of presumed sexually monochromatic passerine birds, were actually sexually dichromatic from an avian visual perspective, based on comparisons of plumage reflectance data using a visual model of color discrimination thresholds. The taxonomic ubiquity of this result suggests that many existing interpretations of evolutionary patterns of sexual dichromatism in birds are erroneous. The visual model used herein provides a method for quantifying sexual dichromatism, revealing that most (58.7%) feather patches sampled lie along a continuum of dichromatism between avian and human discriminatory abilities and could represent unrecognized sexually selected signals. Sexual dichromatism in this study rarely resulted from intersexual differences in UV coloration alone, emphasizing the need for analysis of bird coloration in relation to the full extent of avian visual discriminatory abilities, including, but not limited to, UV-visual capabilities.color vision ͉ plumage evolution

Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs

“…Not only might human perception be error prone or inaccurate in assessing signals aimed at other animals, but humans also differ among themselves in how they rank colors, and may be strongly affected by other factors such as ambient light conditions, especially in the field (23,24). Models of receiver visual perception can greatly improve studies of visual signals, and highlight the limitations of using human assessment; for example, a high proportion of birds may look sexually dimorphic to other birds, but monomorphic to humans (25). These differences in assessment are rarely only the result of birds having UV vision, because "hidden" dimorphism is also common in the human visible part of the spectrum.…”

“…Overall, the validity of human assessment in past work may relate to the host's ability to detect foreign eggs and hence the refinement of parasitic mimicry. Further work would be very valuable to determine the level of error potentially introduced by human assessment in the context of egg rejection, as already carried out for avian plumage color (25).…”

Migration and the evolution of duetting in songbirds

“…Because our scores rely on human colour perception, we have probably overlooked both subtle cases of dichromatism and dichromatism involving short wavelengths that would be apparent to avian visual systems [38]. Different results might be obtained from an analysis that acknowledges a range of variation, from ornamentation to plainness, in both sexes, and defines dichromatism according to avian visual systems [39].…”

Functional visual sensitivity to ultraviolet wavelengths in the Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and its influence on foraging substrate selection

“…Since MSP is available for very few avian species, data from one species is frequently used to model visual perception in other species presumed to have similar visual systems (e.g. [50]). Due to the conservative nature of visual systems, such assumptions are not necessarily unwarranted.…”