Research@StAndrews
 
The University of St Andrews

Research@StAndrews:FullText >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3253
View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
StevensetalBMCBiology2011MotionDazzle.pdf988.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses
Authors: Stevens, Martin
Searle, W. Tom L.
Seymour, Jenny E.
Marshall, Kate L. A.
Ruxton, Graeme Douglas
Keywords: QH301 Biology
Issue Date: 25-Nov-2011
Citation: Stevens , M , Searle , W T L , Seymour , J E , Marshall , K L A & Ruxton , G D 2011 , ' Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses ' BMC Biology , vol 9 , 81 .
Abstract: 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.
Version: Publisher PDF
Status: Peer reviewed
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3253
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-9-81
ISSN: 1741-7007
Type: Journal article
Rights: © 2011 Stevens et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Appears in Collections:Biology Research
University of St Andrews Research



This item is protected by original copyright

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2012  Duraspace - Feedback
For help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk | Copyright for this page belongs to St Andrews University Library | Terms and Conditions (Cookies)