Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 729–733 | Cite as

Anuran predators overcome visual illusion: dazzle coloration does not protect moving prey

  • Sara Zlotnik
  • Geena M. Darnell
  • Ximena E. Bernal
Short Communication

Abstract

Predators everywhere impose strong selection pressures on the morphology and behavior of their prey, but the resulting antipredator adaptations vary greatly among species. Studies of adaptive coloration in prey species have generally focused on cryptic or aposematic prey, with little consideration of color patterns in palatable mobile prey. Complex color patterns have been proposed to decrease the ability of visual predators to capture moving prey (motion dazzle effect). Most support for this hypothesis, however, comes from experiments with human subjects and simulated prey. We tested the motion dazzle effect using, for the first time, natural predators (cane toads, Rhinella marina) and live prey (house crickets, Acheta domesticus) with altered color patterns. We found no support for the motion dazzle effect as striped crickets did not fare better than solid colored ones. Crickets that spent more time moving, however, were more likely to be eaten. Our results suggest that motion specialized visual predators such as toads overcome the motion dazzle effect and impose stronger selection pressure on prey behavior than on coloration. These findings emphasize the importance of sensory specializations of predators in mediating antipredator strategies.

Keywords

Motion dazzle Camouflage Antipredator adaptation Bufo marinus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Lam, N. Anderson, and C. Pantoja, for running experimental trials, R. Lim and E. Shank for coding videos, and J. Peniston for designing figures. We also thank H. Legett, B. Leavell, and F. Boyd for collecting the cane toads used in this study, and D. Pita for measuring the reflectance spectra of the crickets. Members of the Bernal lab provided suggestions that helped improve this manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University. X.E.B. was funded by NSF IOS no. 1433990.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Our experiments were approved by the Purdue Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol #1405001073). This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10071_2018_1199_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (220 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 219 KB)

References

  1. Allen WL, Baddeley R, Scott-Samuel NE, Cuthill IC (2013) The evolution and function of pattern diversity in snakes. Behav Ecol 24:1237–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buxbaum-Conradi H, Ewert JP (1999) Responses of single neurons in the toad’s caudal ventral striatum to moving visual stimuli and test of their efferent projection by extracellular antidromic stimulation/recording techniques. Brain Behav Evol 54:338–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dusenbery DB (1992) Sensory ecology: how animals acquire and respond to information. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Forsman A, Appelqvist S (1998) Visual predators impose correlation selection on prey color pattern and behavior. Behav Ecol 9:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall JR, Cuthill IC, Baddeley R, Shohet AJ, Scott-Samuel NE (2013) Camouflage, detection and identification of moving targets. Proc R Soc B 280:20130064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hämäläinen L, Valkonen J, Mappes J, Rojas B (2015) Visual illusions in predator-prey interactions: birds find moving patterned prey harder to catch. Anim Cogn 18:1059–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogan BG, Cuthill IC, Scott-Samuel NE (2016) Dazzle camouflage, target tracking, and the confusion effect. Behav Ecol 27:1547–1551CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes AE, Troscianko J, Stevens M (2014) Motion dazzle and the effects of target patterning on capture success. BMC Evol Biol 14:201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes AE, Magor-Elliott RS, Stevens M (2015) The role of stripe orientation in target capture success. Front Zool 12:17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson JF, Ingram W, Campbell HW (1976) The dorsal pigmentation pattern of snakes as an antipredator strategy: a multivariate approach. Am Nat 110:1029–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meshaka WE, Powell R (2010) Diets of the native southern toad (Anaxyrus terrestris) and the exotic cane toad (Rhinella marina) from a single site in south-central Florida. Fla Sci 73:175–179Google Scholar
  13. Pough FH (1976) Multiple cryptic effects of crossbanded and ringed patterns of snakes. Copeia 1976:834–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding Attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals, and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Santer RD (2013) Motion dazzle: a locust’s eye view. Biol Lett 9:20130811CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Satou M, Shiraishi A (1991) Local motion processing in the optic tectum of the Japanese toad, Bufo japonicus. J Comp Physiol A 169:569–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Scott-Samuel NE, Baddeley R, Palmer CE, Cuthill IC (2011) Dazzle camouflage affects speed perception. PLoS ONE 6:2–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stevens M (2007) Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration. Proc R Soc B 274:1457–1464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Stevens M, Merilaita S (2011) Animal camouflage: mechanisms and function. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stevens M, Yule DH, Ruxton GD (2008) Dazzle coloration and prey movement. Proc R Soc B 275:2639–2643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Thayer GH (1909) Concealing-coloration in the animal kingdom: an exposition of the laws of disguise through color and pattern: being a summary of Abbott H. Thayer’s discoveries. Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Therneau TM (2015) coxme: mixed effects cox models. R package version 2.2-5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=coxme. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  24. Zug GR, Zug PB (1979) The marine toad, Bufo marinus: a natural history resumé of native populations. Smithson Contrib Zool 284:1–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaRepublic of Panama

Personalised recommendations