Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Camouflage that is spot on! Optimization of spot size in prey-background matching

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Camouflage is a key predation prevention mechanism. The most intuitive camouflage strategy is background matching, where a prey resembles the colour and pattern of its background. Spots (e.g. geometric ‘elements’ that constitute a pattern) are a common feature on the body of prey, but the effect of their size in relation to elements in the background is rarely examined in camouflage studies. Here, we test the survivorship of computer generated prey possessing patterns of elements grouped into eight size classes on backgrounds composed of elements of the same eight size classes. All 64 possible combinations were presented to human volunteers (n = 10) acting as ‘predators’ in a computer simulation. As hypothesised, prey survivorship was high when the prey-background element size difference was low. We found significant asymmetry, however, in survivorship pattern: prey morphs with elements larger than those of the backgrounds were harder to detect than morphs with elements smaller than those of the backgrounds. When testing for potential trade-offs we determined that, in a habitat consisting of an equal proportion of two backgrounds with a large element size difference between them, net survivorship of specialist prey morphs (same element size as one of the backgrounds) was similar to that of generalist morphs (intermediate element size). When the two backgrounds were less distinctive, i.e. reduced element size difference between the backgrounds, generalist prey morphs achieved significantly better net survivorship than specialists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted and modified from Sherratt et al. (2007)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbosa A, Mathger LM, Chubb C et al (2007) Disruptive coloration in cuttlefish: a visual perception mechanism that regulates ontogenetic adjustment of skin patterning. J Exp Biol 210:1139–1147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa A, Mathger LM, Buresch KC et al (2008) Cuttlefish camouflage: the effects of substrate contrast and size in evoking uniform, mottle or disruptive body patterns. Vis Res 48:1242–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty CD, Bain RS, Sherratt TN (2005) The evolution of aggregation in profitable and unprofitable prey. Anim Behav 70:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiao CC, Hanlon RT (2001a) Cuttlefish camouflage: visual perception of size, contrast and number of white squares on artificial checkerboard substrata initiates disruptive coloration. J Exp Biol 204:2119–2125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiao C-C, Hanlon RT (2001b) Cuttlefish cue visually on area: not shape or aspect ratio: of light objects in the substrate to produce disruptive body patterns for camouflage. Biol Bull 201:269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen and Co. Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Szekely A (2009) Coincident disruptive coloration. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:489–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J et al (2005) Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 434:72–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Hiby E, Lloyd E (2006) The predation costs of symmetrical cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1267–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova M, Merilaita S (2010) Prey concealment: visual background complexity and prey contrast distribution. Behav Ecol 21:176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova M, Merilaita S (2012) Prey pattern regularity and background complexity affect detectability of background-matching prey. Behav Ecol 23:384–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1978) A predator’s view of animal color patterns. In: Hecht MK, Steere WC, Wallace B (eds) Evolutionary biology. Springer, Boston, pp 319–364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1980) Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34:76–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1981) An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biol J Linn Soc 22:187–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1984) Progressive background in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis. Biol J Linn Soc 22:187–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa I, Cuthill IC (2014) Disruptive colouration and perceptual grouping. PLoS ONE 9(1):e87153

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer EW, Taylor RM (1980) Visual search through color displays: effects of target-background similarity and background uniformity. Percept Psychophys 27:267–272. doi:10.3758/BF03204265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser S, Callahan A, Klassen D, Sherratt TN (2007) Empirical tests of the role of disruptive coloration in reducing detectability. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:1325–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IE (1968) Interactions between items in visual search. J Exp Psychol 76:348–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall JR, Cuthill IC, Baddeley R et al (2013) Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci 280:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon RT, Messenger JB (1988) Adaptive coloration in young cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.): the morphology and development of body patterns and their relation to behaviour. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 320:437–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, Stevens M, Cuthill IC (2007) Animal camouflage: compromise or specialize in a 2 patch-type environment? Behav Ecol 18:769–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang C, Stevens M, J-y Moon et al (2015) Camouflage through behavior in moths: the role of background matching and disruptive coloration. Behav Ecol 26:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpestam E, Merilaita S, Forsman A (2013) Detection experiments with humans implicate visual predation as a driver of colour polymorphism dynamics in pygmy grasshoppers. BMC Ecol 13:17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kiltie RA (1992) Tests of hypotheses on predation as a factor maintaining polymorphic melanism in coastal-plain fox squirrels (Sciurus niger L.). Biol J Linn Soc 45:17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RB (1992) Lake Erie water snakes revisited: morph- and age-specific variation in relative crypsis. Evol Ecol 6:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S (1998) Crypsis through disruptive coloration in an isopod. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1059–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S (1999) Optimization of cryptic coloration in heterogeneous habitats. Biol J Linn Soc 67:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S (2003) Visual background complexity facilitates the evolution of camouflage. Evolution 57:1248–1254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Dimitrova M (2014) Accuracy of background matching and prey detection: predation by blue tits indicates intense selection for highly matching prey colour pattern. Funct Ecol 28:1208–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Lind J (2005) Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:665–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Stevens M (2011) Crypsis through background matching. In: Stevens M, Merilaita S (eds) Animal camouflage: mechanisms and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Lyytinen A, Mappes J (2001) Selection for cryptic coloration in a visually heterogeneous habitat. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:1925–1929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer HM, Stobbe N (2006) Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2427–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherratt TN, Pollitt D, Wilkinson DM (2007) The evolution of crypsis in replicating populations of web-based prey. Oikos 116:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Merilaita S (2009a) Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:423–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Merilaita S (2009b) Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Merilaita S (2011) Animal camouflage: an introduction. In: Stevens M, Merilaita S (eds) Animal camouflage: mechanisms and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Cuthill IC, Windsor AMM, Walker HJ (2006) Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2433–2438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Winney IS, Cantor A, Graham J (2009) Outline and surface disruption in animal camouflage. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:781–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Marshall KLA, Troscianko J et al (2013) Revealed by conspicuousness: distractive markings reduce camouflage. Behav Ecol 24:213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd PA (2009) Testing for camouflage using virtual prey and human “predators”. J Biol Educ 43:81–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd PA, Phua H, Toh KB (2015) Interactions between background matching and disruptive colouration: experiments using human predators and virtual crabs. Curr Zool 61:718–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster RJ (2015) Does disruptive camouflage conceal edges and features? Curr Zool 61:708–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster RJ, Hassall C, Herdman CM et al (2013) Disruptive camouflage impairs object recognition. Biol Lett 9:20130501

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Webster RJ, Godin J-GJ, Sherratt TN (2015) The role of body shape and edge characteristics on the concealment afforded by potentially disruptive marking. Anim Behav 104:197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the NUS students who participated in the experiment and the members of the Experimental Marine Ecology Laboratory who provided support and input. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. This research was funded by Singapore’s Ministry of Education’s AcRF Tier 1 Grant Numbers R-154-000-414-133 and R-154-000-660-112.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tropical Marine Science Institute, National University of Singapore, 18 Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119227, Singapore

    Kok Ben Toh

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Singapore

    Kok Ben Toh & Peter Todd

Authors
  1. Kok Ben Toh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Todd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toh, K.B., Todd, P. Camouflage that is spot on! Optimization of spot size in prey-background matching. Evol Ecol 31, 447–461 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-017-9886-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-017-9886-3

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Kok Ben Toh View author profile