Interference coloration as an anti-predator defence

Pike, Thomas W.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0159

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite being proposed more than a century ago, empirical support for Thayer's theory of iridescence as camouflage has only appeared very recently [17,18]. These studies confirmed that iridescence appeared to interfere with the ability of birds to successfully strike at simulated virtual prey [17] and with the ability of bees to identify a target shape [18].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Iridescence as Camouflage

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Iridescence as Camouflage

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This cost may arise if iridescence has the potential to corrupt object identity. In certain situations, where camouflage is important, this corruption of identity by disruptive coloration could be a significant advantage [ 4 , 25 ]. However, to a foraging pollinator, disruption of color identity would weaken search image formation and compromise the pollinator’s ability to identify rewarding flowers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flower Iridescence Increases Object Detection in the Insect Visual System without Compromising Object Identity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIridescence is a form of structural coloration, produced by a range of structures, in which hue is dependent on viewing angle [1, 2, 3, 4]. One of these structures, the diffraction grating, is found both in animals (for example, beetles [2]) and in plants (on the petals of some animal pollinated flowers [5]). The behavioral impacts of floral iridescence and its potential ecological significance are unknown [6, 7, 8, 9]. Animal-pollinated flowers are described as “sensory billboards” [10], with many floral features contributing to a conspicuous display that filters prospective pollinators. Yet floral iridescence is more subtle to the human eye than that of many animal displays because the floral diffraction grating is not perfectly regular [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. This presents a puzzle: if the function of petals is to attract pollinators, then flowers might be expected to optimize iridescence to increase showiness. On the other hand, pollinators memorize floral colors as consistent advertisements of reward quality, and iridescence might corrupt flower color identity. Here we tested the trade-off between flower detectability and recognition, requiring bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) to identify artificial flowers that varied in pigmentation and degree of iridescence. We find that iridescence does increase target detectability but that “perfect” iridescence (produced by an artificial diffraction grating) corrupts target identity and bees make many mistakes. However, “imperfect” floral iridescence does not lead to mistaken target identity, while still benefitting flower detectability. We hypothesize that similar trade-offs might be found in the many naturally “imperfect” iridescence-producing structures found in animal-animal, as well as other plant-animal, interactions.

show abstract

“…However, the potential to combine dazzle and crypsis in this way is at present speculative. Finally, an intriguing experiment by Pike () raises the possibility that iridescence (or interference) coloration, where perceived colour changes with angle of viewing, might function to reduce capture of moving prey. Pike presented captive birds with artificial moving prey on touch screens and found that, compared to control prey, iridescent targets incurred more pecks before capture and that missed pecks were more inaccurate, despite no difference in latency to attack between prey types.…”

Section: Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The key role of behaviour in animal camouflage

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal camouflage represents one of the most important ways of preventing (or facilitating) predation. It attracted the attention of the earliest evolutionary biologists, and today remains a focus of investigation in areas ranging from evolutionary ecology, animal decision-making, optimal strategies, visual psychology, computer science, to materials science. Most work focuses on the role of animal morphology per se, and its interactions with the background in affecting detection and recognition. However, the behaviour of organisms is likely to be crucial in affecting camouflage too, through background choice, body orientation and positioning; and strategies of camouflage that require movement. A wealth of potential mechanisms may affect such behaviours, from imprinting and self-assessment to genetics, and operate at several levels (species, morph, and individual). Over many years there have been numerous studies investigating the role of behaviour in camouflage, but to date, no effort to synthesise these studies and ideas into a coherent framework. Here, we review key work on behaviour and camouflage, highlight the mechanisms involved and implications of behaviour, discuss the importance of this in a changing world, and offer suggestions for addressing the many important gaps in our understanding of this subject.

show abstract

Interference coloration as an anti-predator defence

Cited by 35 publications

References 28 publications

Iridescence as Camouflage

Iridescence as Camouflage

Flower Iridescence Increases Object Detection in the Insect Visual System without Compromising Object Identity

The key role of behaviour in animal camouflage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About