Putting the pH into phosphatidic acid signaling

Background

Camouflage patterns that hinder detection and/or recognition by antagonists are widely studied in both human and animal contexts. Patterns of contrasting stripes that purportedly degrade an observer's ability to judge the speed and direction of moving prey ('motion dazzle') are, however, rarely investigated. This is despite motion dazzle having been fundamental to the appearance of warships in both world wars and often postulated as the selective agent leading to repeated patterns on many animals (such as zebra and many fish, snake, and invertebrate species). Such patterns often appear conspicuous, suggesting that protection while moving by motion dazzle might impair camouflage when stationary. However, the relationship between motion dazzle and camouflage is unclear because disruptive camouflage relies on high-contrast markings. In this study, we used a computer game with human subjects detecting and capturing either moving or stationary targets with different patterns, in order to provide the first empirical exploration of the interaction of these two protective coloration mechanisms.

Results

Moving targets with stripes were caught significantly less often and missed more often than targets with camouflage patterns. However, when stationary, targets with camouflage markings were captured less often and caused more false detections than those with striped patterns, which were readily detected.

Conclusions

Our study provides the clearest evidence to date that some patterns inhibit the capture of moving targets, but that camouflage and motion dazzle are not complementary strategies. Therefore, the specific coloration that evolves in animals will depend on how the life history and ontogeny of each species influence the trade-off between the costs and benefits of motion dazzle and camouflage.     

Testing Thayer's hypothesis: can camouflage work by distraction?

One of the oldest theories of animal camouflage predicts that apparently conspicuous markings enhance concealment. Such 'distraction' marks are hypothesized to work by drawing the viewer's attention away from salient features, such as the body outline, that would otherwise reveal the animal. If distraction marks enhance concealment, then they offer a route for animals to combine camouflage markings with conspicuous signalling strategies, such as warning signals. However, the theory has never been tested and remains controversial. By using camouflaged artificial prey presented to wild avian predators, we test whether distractive markings enhance concealment. In contrast to predictions, we find that markings, both circular and irregular shapes, increase predation compared with unmarked targets. Markings became increasingly costly as their contrast against the prey increased. Our experiments failed to find any empirical support for the hypothesis that distraction markings are an important aspect of camouflage in animals.     

Concealed by conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds

High-contrast markings, called distractive or dazzle markings, have been suggested to draw and hold the attention of a viewer, thus hindering detection or recognition of revealing prey characteristics, such as the body outline. We tested this hypothesis in a predation experiment with blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and artificial prey. We also tested whether this idea can be extrapolated to the background appearance and whether high-contrast markings in the background would improve prey concealment. We compared search times for a high-contrast range prey (HC-P) and a low-contrast range prey (LC-P) in a high-contrast range background (HC-B) and a low-contrast range background (LC-B). The HC-P was more difficult to detect in both backgrounds, although it did not match the LC-B. Also, both prey types were more difficult to find in the HC-B than in the LC-B, in spite of the mismatch of the LC-P. In addition, the HC-P was more difficult to detect, in both backgrounds, when compared with a generalist prey, not mismatching either background. Thus, we conclude that distractive prey pattern markings and selection of microhabitats with distractive features may provide an effective way to improve camouflage. Importantly, high-contrast markings, both as part of the prey coloration and in the background, can indeed increase prey concealment.     

Cuttlefish camouflage: context-dependent body pattern use during motion

It is virtually impossible to camouflage a moving target against a non-uniform background, but strategies have been proposed to reduce detection and targeting of movement. Best known is the idea that high contrast markings produce ‘motion dazzle’, which impairs judgement of speed and trajectory. The ability of the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis to change its visual appearance allows us to compare the animal''s choice of patterns during movement to the predictions of models of motion camouflage. We compare cuttlefish body patterns used during movement with those expressed when static on two background types; one of which promotes low-contrast mottle patterns and the other promotes high-contrast disruptive patterns. We find that the body pattern used during motion is context-specific and that high-contrast body pattern components are significantly reduced during movement. Thus, in our experimental conditions, cuttlefish do not use high contrast motion dazzle. It may be that, in addition to being inherently conspicuous during movement, moving high-contrast patterns will attract attention because moving particles in coastal waters tend to be of small size and of low relative contrast.     

Do bovids evolve hindquarter markings for anti-predation?

Conspicuous coloration in animals serves many functions such as anti-predation. Anti-predation strategies include motion dazzle and flash behavior. Motion dazzle markings can reduce the probability of being preyed on because the predators misjudge their movement. In flash behavior, prey demonstrate conspicuous cue while fleeing; the predators follow them; however, the prey hide their markings and the predators assume that the prey has vanished. To investigate whether bovids use conspicuous hindquarter markings as an anti-predatory behavior, we undertook phylogenetically controlled analyses to explore under what physiological characteristics and environmental factors bovids might have this color pattern. The results suggested that rump patches and tail markings were more prevalent in bovids living in larger-sized groups, which supports the hypothesis of intraspecific communication. Moreover, we observed the occurrence of conspicuous white hindquarter markings in bovids having smaller body size and living in larger groups, suggesting a motion dazzle function. However, the feature of facultative exposing color patterns (flash markings) was not associated with body size, which was inconsistent with predictions and implied that bovids may not adopt this as an anti-predator strategy. It was concluded that species in bovids with conspicuous white hindquarter markings adopt motion dazzle as an anti-predation strategy while fleeing and escaping from being prey on.     

Warning signals evolve to disengage Batesian mimics

Prey that are unprofitable to attack are typically conspicuous in appearance. Conventional theory assumes that these warning signals have evolved in response to predator receiver biases. However, such biases might be a symptom rather than a cause of warning signals. We therefore examine an alternative theory: that conspicuousness evolves in unprofitable prey to avoid confusion with profitable prey. One might wonder why unprofitable prey do not find a cryptic means to be distinct from profitable prey, reducing both their risk of confusion with profitable prey and their rate of detection by predators. Here we present the first coevolutionary model to allow for Batesian mimicry and signals with different levels of detectability. We find that unprofitable prey do indeed evolve ways of distinguishing themselves using cryptic signals, particularly when appearance traits can evolve in multiple dimensions. However, conspicuous warning signals readily evolve in unprofitable prey when there are more ways to look different from the background than to match it. Moreover, the more unprofitable the prey species, the higher its evolved conspicuousness. Our results provide strong support for the argument that unprofitable species evolve conspicuous signals to avoid confusion with profitable prey and indicate that peak shift in conspicuousness-linked traits is a major factor in its establishment.     

Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration

Animals possess a range of defensive markings to reduce the risk of predation, including warning colours, camouflage, eyespots and mimicry. These different strategies are frequently considered independently, and with little regard towards predator vision, even though they may be linked in various ways and can be fully understood only in terms of predator perception. For example, camouflage and warning coloration need not be mutually exclusive, and may frequently exploit similar features of visual perception. This paper outlines how different forms of protective markings can be understood from predator perception and illustrates how this is fundamental in determining the mechanisms underlying, and the interrelation between, different strategies. Suggestions are made for future work, and potential mechanisms discussed in relation to various forms of defensive coloration, including disruptive coloration, eyespots, dazzle markings, motion camouflage, aposematism and mimicry.     

Are Stripes Beneficial? Dazzle Camouflage Influences Perceived Speed and Hit Rates

In the animal kingdom, camouflage refers to patterns that help potential prey avoid detection. Mostly camouflage is thought of as helping prey blend in with their background. In contrast, disruptive or dazzle patterns protect moving targets and have been suggested as an evolutionary force in shaping the dorsal patterns of animals. Dazzle patterns, such as stripes and zigzags, are thought to reduce the probability with which moving prey will be captured by impairing predators'' perception of speed. We investigated how different patterns of stripes (longitudinal—i.e., parallel to movement direction–and vertical–i.e., perpendicular to movement direction) affect the probability with which humans can hit moving objects and if differences in hitting probability are caused by a misperception of speed. A first experiment showed that longitudinally striped objects were hit more often than unicolored objects. However, vertically striped objects did not differ from unicolored objects. A second study examining the link between perceived speed and hitting probability showed that longitudinally and vertically striped objects were both perceived as moving faster and were hit more often than unicolored objects. In sum, our results provide evidence that striped patterns disrupt the perception of speed, which in turn influences how often objects are hit. However, the magnitude and the direction of the effects depend on additional factors such as speed and the task setup.     

Dazzle camouflage affects speed perception

Movement is the enemy of camouflage: most attempts at concealment are disrupted by motion of the target. Faced with this problem, navies in both World Wars in the twentieth century painted their warships with high contrast geometric patterns: so-called "dazzle camouflage". Rather than attempting to hide individual units, it was claimed that this patterning would disrupt the perception of their range, heading, size, shape and speed, and hence reduce losses from, in particular, torpedo attacks by submarines. Similar arguments had been advanced earlier for biological camouflage. Whilst there are good reasons to believe that most of these perceptual distortions may have occurred, there is no evidence for the last claim: changing perceived speed. Here we show that dazzle patterns can distort speed perception, and that this effect is greatest at high speeds. The effect should obtain in predators launching ballistic attacks against rapidly moving prey, or modern, low-tech battlefields where handheld weapons are fired from short ranges against moving vehicles. In the latter case, we demonstrate that in a typical situation involving an RPG7 attack on a Land Rover the reduction in perceived speed is sufficient to make the grenade miss where it was aimed by about a metre, which could be the difference between survival or not for the occupants of the vehicle.     

Do unprofitable prey evolve traits that profitable prey find difficult to exploit?

Prey that are unprofitable to attack (for example, those containing noxious chemicals) are often conspicuously patterned and move in a slower and more predictable manner than species lacking these defences. Contemporary theories suggest these traits have evolved as warning signals because they can facilitate both associative and discriminative avoidance learning in predators. However, it is unclear why these particular traits and not others have tended to evolve in unprofitable prey. Here we show using a signal detection model that unprofitable prey will evolve conspicuous colours and patterns partly because these characteristics cannot readily evolve in profitable prey without close mimicry. The stability of this signal is maintained through the costs of dishonesty in profitable prey. Indeed, unprofitable prey will sometimes evolve a conspicuous form to reduce mimetic parasitism, even in the unlikely event that this form can be more closely mimicked. This is one of the first mathematical models of the evolution of warning signals to allow for the possibility of mimicry, yet our analyses suggest it may offer a general explanation as to why warning signals take the form that they do. Warning signals and mimicry may therefore be more closely related than is currently supposed.     

Effect of sex and bright coloration on survival and predator‐induced wing damage in an aposematic lantern fly with startle display

1. Aposematic coloration in prey promotes its survival by conspicuously advertising unpalatability to predators. Although classical examples of aposematic signals involve constant presentation of a signal at a distance, some animals suddenly display warning colours only when they are attacked. 2. Characteristics of body parts suddenly displayed, such as conspicuous coloration or eyespot pattern, may increase the survival of the prey by startling the predator, and/or by signalling unpalatability to the predators at the moment of attack. 3. The adaptive value of such colour patterns suddenly displayed by unpalatable prey has not been studied. We experimentally blackened the red patch in the conspicuous red–white–black hindwing pattern displayed by an unpalatable insect Lycorma delicatula White (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in response to predator's attack. 4. There was no evidence that the presence of the red patch increased prey survival over several weeks. We hypothesise that predators generalised from the red–white–black patches on the hindwings of unpalatable L. delicatula to any similar wing display as a signal of unpalatability. Because a higher proportion of males than females stay put at their resting sites, displaying their wings in response to repeated attacks by predators, wing damage was more frequent in males than in females. 5. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental test of an adaptive role of aposematic signals presented by unpalatable prey during sudden displays triggered by direct predatory attack.     

Warning signals and predator-prey coevolution

Theories of the evolution of warning signals are typically expressed using analytic and computational models, most of which attribute aspects of predator psychology as the key factors facilitating the evolution of warning signals. Sherratt provides a novel and promising perspective with a model that considers the coevolution of predator and prey populations, showing how predators may develop a bias towards attacking cryptic prey in preference to conspicuous prey. Here, we replicate the model as an individual-based simulation and find, in accordance with Sherratt, that predators evolve a bias towards attacking cryptic prey. We then use a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the relative survivorships of cryptic and conspicuous prey and stress that, as it stands, the model does not predict the evolution or stability of warning signals. We extend the model by giving predators continuous attack strategies and by allowing the evolution of prey conspicuousness: results are robust to the first modification but, in all cases, cryptic prey always enjoy a higher survivorship than conspicuous prey. When conspicuousness is allowed to evolve, prey quickly evolve towards crypsis, even when runaway coevolution is enabled. Sherratt's approach is promising, but other aspects of predator psychology, besides their innate response, remain vital to our understanding of warning signals.     

Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage

Camouflage typically involves colour patterns that match the background. However, it has been argued that concealment may be achieved by strategic use of apparently conspicuous markings. Recent evidence supports the theory that the presence of contrasting patterns placed peripherally on an animal's body (disruptive coloration) provides survival advantages. However, no study has tested a key prediction from the early literature that disruptive coloration is effective even when some colour patches do not match the background and have a high contrast with both the background and adjacent pattern elements (disruptive contrast). We test this counter-intuitive idea that conspicuous patterns might aid concealment, using artificial moth-like targets with pattern elements designed to match or mismatch the average luminance (lightness) of the trees on which they were placed. Disruptive coloration was less effective when some pattern elements did not match the background luminance. However, even non-background-matching disruptive patterns reduced predation relative to equivalent non-disruptive patterns or to unpatterned controls. Therefore, concealment may still be achieved even when an animal possesses markings not found in the background. Disruptive coloration may allow animals to exploit backgrounds on which they are not perfectly matched, and to possess conspicuous markings while still retaining a degree of camouflage.     

Linking the evolution and form of warning coloration in nature

Many animals are toxic or unpalatable and signal this to predators with warning signals (aposematism). Aposematic appearance has long been a classical system to study predator–prey interactions, communication and signalling, and animal behaviour and learning. The area has received considerable empirical and theoretical investigation. However, most research has centred on understanding the initial evolution of aposematism, despite the fact that these studies often tell us little about the form and diversity of real warning signals in nature. In contrast, less attention has been given to the mechanistic basis of aposematic markings; that is, ‘what makes an effective warning signal?’, and the efficacy of warning signals has been neglected. Furthermore, unlike other areas of adaptive coloration research (such as camouflage and mate choice), studies of warning coloration have often been slow to address predator vision and psychology. Here, we review the current understanding of warning signal form, with an aim to comprehend the diversity of warning signals in nature. We present hypotheses and suggestions for future work regarding our current understanding of several inter-related questions covering the form of warning signals and their relationship with predator vision, learning, and links to broader issues in evolutionary ecology such as mate choice and speciation.     

The evolution of patterning during movement in a large-scale citizen science game

The motion dazzle hypothesis posits that high contrast geometric patterns can cause difficulties in tracking a moving target and has been argued to explain the patterning of animals such as zebras. Research to date has only tested a small number of patterns, offering equivocal support for the hypothesis. Here, we take a genetic programming approach to allow patterns to evolve based on their fitness (time taken to capture) and thus find the optimal strategy for providing protection when moving. Our ‘Dazzle Bug’ citizen science game tested over 1.5 million targets in a touch screen game at a popular visitor attraction. Surprisingly, we found that targets lost pattern elements during evolution and became closely background matching. Modelling results suggested that targets with lower motion energy were harder to catch. Our results indicate that low contrast, featureless targets offer the greatest protection against capture when in motion, challenging the motion dazzle hypothesis.     

Conditions for the spread of conspicuous warning signals: a numerical model with novel insights

The initial evolution of conspicuous warning signals presents an evolutionary problem because selection against rare conspicuous signals is presumed to be strong, and new signals are rare when they first arise. Several possible solutions have been offered to solve this apparent evolutionary paradox, but disagreement persists over the plausibility of some of the proposed mechanisms. In this paper, we construct a deterministic numerical simulation model that allows us to derive the strength of selection on novel warning signals in a wide range of biologically relevant situations. We study the effects of predator psychology (learning, rate of mistaken attacks, and neophobia) on selection. We also study the how prey escape, predation intensity, number of predators, and abundance of different prey types affects selection. The model provides several important results. Selection on novel warning signals is number rather than frequency dependent. In most cases, there exists a threshold number of aposematic individuals below which aposematism is selected against and above which aposematism is selected for. Signal conspicuousness (which increases detection rate) and distinctiveness (which allows predator to distinguish defended from nondefended prey) have opposing effects on evolution of warning signals. A more conspicuous warning signal cannot evolve unless it makes the prey more distinctive from palatable prey, reducing mistaken attacks by predators. A novel warning signal that is learned quickly can spread from lower abundance more easily than a signal that is learned more slowly. However, the relative rate at which the resident signal and the novel signal are learned is irrelevant for the spread of the novel signal. Long-lasting neophobia can facilitate the spread of novel warning signals. Individual selection via the ability of defended prey to escape from predator is not likely to facilitate evolution of conspicuous warning signals if both the resident (cryptic) morph and the novel morph have the same escape probability. Predation intensity (defined as the proportion of palatable prey eaten by the predator) has a strong effect on selection. More intense predation results in strong selection against rare signals, but also strong selective advantage to common signals. The threshold number of aposematic individuals is lower when predation is intense. Thus, the evolution of warning signals may be more likely in environments where predation is intense. The effect of numbers of predators depends on whether predation intensity also changes. When predation intensity is constant, increasing numbers of predators raises the threshold number of aposematic individuals, and thus makes evolution of aposematism more difficult. If predation intensity increases in parallel with number of predators, the threshold number of aposematic individuals does not change much, but selection becomes more intense on both sides of the threshold.     

Animal camouflage: compromise or specialize in a 2 patch-type environment?

Many animals possess camouflage markings that reduce the riskof detection by visually hunting predators. A key aspect ofcamouflage involves mimicking the background against which theanimal is viewed. However, most animals experience a wide varietyof backgrounds and cannot change their external appearance tomatch each selectively. We investigate whether such animalsshould adopt camouflage specialized with respect to one backgroundor adopt a compromise between the attributes of multiple backgrounds.We do this using a model consisting of predators that hunt preyin patches of 2 different types, where prey adopt the camouflagethat minimizes individual risk of predation. We show that theoptimal strategy of the prey is affected by a number of factors,including the relative frequencies of the patch types, the traveltime of predators between patches, the mean prey number in eachpatch type, and the trade-off function between the levels ofcrypsis in the patch types. We find evidence that both specialistand compromise strategies of prey camouflage are favored underdifferent model parameters, indicating that optimal concealmentmay not be as straightforward as previously thought.     

The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry

Various conspicuous signals in nature promote initial and learnedavoidance by predators. It is widely thought that such signalsare most effective when highly symmetrical in features suchas size and shape, supported by recent laboratory experimentswith domestic chicks and artificial prey. However, no studyhas investigated the effect of asymmetry on conspicuous signalsin a natural setting, where viewing distances, angles, predatorspecies, and light conditions vary and where predators encounterprey sequentially rather than simultaneously. We undertook 2field experiments with artificial gray-scale prey, marked witha pair of white markings presented to wild avian predators,to test the effect of asymmetry on the survival value of conspicuoussignals in the field. Experiment 1 had treatments with symmetricalspots or with spots asymmetrical in area between 5 and 50%.All marked treatments survived better than unmarked controls,but there was no benefit of being symmetrical. Experiment 2tested the effect of possessing markings asymmetrical for shapeor position and any additive effect of these 2 features. Again,symmetry conferred no benefit and targets with markings asymmetricalfor position and/or shape survived equally well as those withsymmetrical arrangements. These findings indicate that asymmetryin warning signals may not be costly to prey in nature or beof less importance compared with other features of the signal,such as color and overall size.     

The coevolution of warning signals

It has long been recognized that defended prey tend to be conspicuous. Current theories suggest that the association ('aposematism') has arisen because predators more readily learn to avoid attacking defended phenotypes when they are conspicuous. In this paper, I consider why such psychology has evolved. In particular, I argue that aposematism may have evolved not because of an independent and pre-existing receiver bias, but because the conspicuousness of a prey item provides a reliable indicator of its likelihood of being defended. To develop my case I consider how warning signals might coevolve in a system containing a number of predators, whose foraging behaviour is also subject to selection. In these cases, models readily show that the greater the conspicuousness of a novel prey item, the more likely that it has been encountered by other predators and survived. As a consequence, naive predators should be less likely to attack highly conspicuous novel prey on encounter, or at least more inclined to attack them cautiously. This adaptive predator behaviour will greatly facilitate the spread of aposematic phenotypes from extreme rarity, which in turn will enhance selection for forms of predator behaviour under which aposematism will coevolve even more readily.     

Warning coloration can be disruptive: aposematic marginal wing patterning in the wood tiger moth

Warning (aposematic) and cryptic colorations appear to be mutually incompatible because the primary function of the former is to increase detectability, whereas the function of the latter is to decrease it. Disruptive coloration is a type of crypsis in which the color pattern breaks up the outline of the prey, thus hindering its detection. This delusion can work even when the prey's pattern elements are highly contrasting; thus, it is possible for an animal's coloration to combine both warning and disruptive functions. The coloration of the wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis) is such that the moth is conspicuous when it rests on vegetation, but when it feigns death and drops to the grass‐ and litter‐covered ground, it is hard to detect. This death‐feigning behavior therefore immediately switches the function of its coloration from signaling to camouflage. We experimentally tested whether the forewing patterning of wood tiger moths could function as disruptive coloration against certain backgrounds. Using actual forewing patterns of wood tiger moths, we crafted artificial paper moths and placed them on a background image resembling a natural litter and grass background. We manipulated the disruptiveness of the wing pattern so that all (marginal pattern) or none (nonmarginal pattern) of the markings extended to the edge of the wing. Paper moths, each with a hidden palatable food item, were offered to great tits (Parus major) in a large aviary where the birds could search for and attack the “moths” according to their detectability. The results showed that prey items with the disruptive marginal pattern were attacked less often than prey without it. However, the disruptive function was apparent only when the prey was brighter than the background. These results suggest that warning coloration and disruptive coloration can work in concert and that the moth, by feigning death, can switch the function of its coloration from warning to disruptive.