Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorStevens, Martin
dc.contributor.authorSearle, W. Tom L.
dc.contributor.authorSeymour, Jenny E.
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Kate L. A.
dc.contributor.authorRuxton, Graeme Douglas
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-16T16:01:03Z
dc.date.available2012-11-16T16:01:03Z
dc.date.issued2011-11-25
dc.identifier.citationStevens , 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 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-9-81en
dc.identifier.issn1741-7007
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 27435782
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 49ac998c-0241-4bc2-94e9-3bda557d1667
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000299077400001
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 82055171965
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-8943-6609/work/60427442
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/3253
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.format.extent11
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Biologyen
dc.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.en
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleMotion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defensesen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-9-81
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record