Individual egg camouflage is influenced by microhabitat selection and use of nest materials in ground-nesting birds

  • Jesús GómezEmail author
  • Cristina Ramo
  • Jolyon Troscianko
  • Martin Stevens
  • Macarena Castro
  • Alejandro Pérez-Hurtado
  • Gustavo Liñán-Cembrano
  • Juan A. Amat
Original Article


Camouflage is a widespread strategy to avoid predation and is of particular importance for animals with reduced mobility or those in exposed habitats. Camouflage often relies on matching the visual appearance of the background, and selecting fine-scale backgrounds that complement an individual’s appearance is an effective means of optimising camouflage. We investigated whether there was an active selection of microhabitats and nest materials in three ground-nesting birds (pied avocet, Kentish plover, and little tern) to camouflage their eggs using avian visual modelling. Plovers and avocets selected substrates in which their eggs were better camouflaged, and that choice was done at an individual level. Terns have lighter, less spotted eggs, and while they did select lighter background than the other species, their eggs were a poor match to their backgrounds. The worse matching of the tern eggs was likely due to a compromise between thermal protection and camouflage because they breed later, when temperatures are higher. Finally, the addition of nest materials improved egg camouflage in terms of luminance, although the materials reduced pattern matching, which may be associated with the different roles that the nest materials play. Active selection of substrates at an individual level may be crucial to improve nest success in species that nest in exposed sites.

Significance statement

Many bird species nest on the ground at sites with no vegetation cover where their nests are exposed to visual predators. We studied whether individual females chose nest substrates that improved the camouflage of their eggs. Using images of nests and avian vision modelling, we found that the choice of nesting substrates in two species was done at the individual level, so that egg camouflage was optimised. In addition, such species were even able to improve egg camouflage by the addition of materials into the nests. However, this pattern was not observed in another species with paler and less spotted eggs, which may reflect a trade-off between camouflage and overheating of eggs because it breeds later in the season. Although individuals may try to choose substrates in which their eggs are better camouflaged, other factors that compromise offspring survival may hamper this.


Crypsis Background matching Habitat choice Eggshells Pattern matching 



Thanks to Antonio Gómez Ferrer for facilities at the study site and to the Consejería de Medio Ambiente of the Junta de Andalucía for authorising our study. Thanks to Robert G. Clark, Antón Pérez-Rodríguez, the editors, an anonymous reviewer, and Clemmes Küpper for comments on an earlier version.

Author contribution

JG designed the study and analysed the images. JT and MS contributed with materials and image analyses. JG, MC, AP-H, CR, and JAA collected the field data. JG analysed the dataset and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed on later manuscript versions.

Funding information

JG was supported by a FPU predoctoral fellowship (FPU-12/01616) from Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Spain. Our project was funded by grant CGL2011-24230 from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain, with EU-ERDF financial support. JT and MS were funded by a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) grant BB/J018309/1 to MS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed and approved by Comité Ético de Bienestar Animal from EBD-CSIC (reference CEBA-EBD_2011_01).

Supplementary material

265_2018_2558_MOESM1_ESM.docx (238 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 237 kb)


  1. Amat JA, Masero JA (2004) Predation risk on incubating adults constrains the choice of thermally favourable sites in a plover. Anim Behav 67:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amat JA, Masero JA (2007) The functions of belly-soaking in Kentish plovers Charadrius alexandrinus. Ibis 149:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amat JA, Monsa R, Masero JA (2012) Dual function of egg-covering in the Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus. Behaviour 149:881–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amat JA, Gómez J, Liñán-Cembrano G, Rendón MA, Ramo C (2017) Incubating terns modify risk-taking according to diurnal variations in egg camouflage and ambient temperature. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey IE, Muth F, Morgan K, Meddle SL, Healy SD (2015) Birds build camouflaged nests. Auk 132:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Paton TA (2007) Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at least 14 clades of shorebirds. Biol Lett 3:205–210CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa A, Allen JJ, Mäthger LM, Hanlon RT (2012) Cuttlefish use visual cues to determine arm postures for camouflage. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowmaker JK (1977) The visual pigments, oil droplets and spectral sensitivity of the pigeon (Columba livia). Vis Res 17:1129–1138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll JM, Davis CA, Elmore RD, Fuhlendorf SD (2015) A ground-nesting galliform’s response to thermal heterogeneity: implications for ground-dwelling birds. PLoS One 10:e0143676CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherry MI, Gosler AG (2010) Avian eggshell coloration: new perspectives on adaptive explanations. Biol J Linn Soc 100:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colwell MA, Meyer JJ, Hardy MA, Mcallister SE, Transou AN, Levalley RR, Dinsmore SJ (2011) Western snowy plovers Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus select nesting substrates that enhance egg crypsis and improve nest survival. Ibis 153:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham JA, Kesler DC, Lanctot RB (2016) Habitat and social factors influence nest-site selection in Arctic-breeding shorebirds. Auk 133:364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuthill IC (2006) Color perception. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, Mechanisms and measurements, vol I. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS, pp 3–40Google Scholar
  15. del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (1996) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  16. Duarte RC, Flores AAV, Stevens M (2017) Camouflage through colour change: mechanisms, adaptive value, and ecological significance. Phil Trans R Soc B 372:20160342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Edelaar P, Baños-Villalba A, Escudero G, Rodríguez-Bernal C (2017) Background colour matching increases with risk of predation in a colour-changing grasshopper. Behav Ecol 28:698–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekanayake KB, Weston MA, Nimmo DG, Maguire GS, Endler JA, Küpper C (2015) The bright incubate at night: sexual dichromatism and adaptive incubation division in an open-nesting shorebird. Proc R Soc B 282:20143026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Endler JA (1978) A predator’s view of animal color patterns. Evol Biol 11:319–364Google Scholar
  20. Figuerola J (2007) Climate and dispersal: black-winged stilts disperse further in dry springs. PLoS One 2:e539CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Fontaine JJ, Martin TE (2006) Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecol Lett 9:428–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez J, Liñán-Cembrano G (2017) SpotEgg: an image-processing tool for automatised analysis of coloration and spottiness. J Avian Biol 48:502–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gómez J, Pereira AI, Pérez-Hurtado A, Castro M, Ramo C, Amat JA (2016) A trade-off between overheating and camouflage on shorebird eggshell coloration. J Avian Biol 47:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gosler AG, Barnett PR, Reynolds SJ (2000) Inheritance and variation in eggshell patterning in the great tit Parus major. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2469–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant GS (1982) Avian incubation: egg temperature, nest humidity, and behavioral thermoregulation in a hot environment. Ornithol Monogr 30:1–75Google Scholar
  26. Hart NS (2002) Vision in the peafowl (Aves: Pavo cristatus). J Exp Biol 205:3925–3935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1986) Soil-binding pilosity and camouflage in ants of the tribes Basicerotini and Stegomyrmecini (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Zoomorphology 106:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hultgren KM, Stachowicz JJ (2008) Alternative camouflage strategies mediate predation risk among closely related co-occurring kelp crabs. Oecologia 155:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang C, Stevens M, Moon JY, Lee SI, Jablonski PG (2015) Camouflage through behavior in moths: the role of background matching and disruptive coloration. Behav Ecol 26:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kilner RM (2006) The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol Rev 81:383–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lathi DC (2008) Population differentiation and rapid evolution of egg color in accordance with solar radiation. Auk 125:796–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee WS, Kwon YS, Yoo JC (2010) Egg survival is related to the colour matching of eggs to nest background in black-tailed gulls. J Ornithol 151:765–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee BY, Parra-Velandia FJ, Ng NK, Todd P (2014) An unusual form of camouflage in the mangrove crab Clistocoeloma merguiense. Bull Mar Sci 90:967–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lind O, Mitkus M, Olsson P, Kelber A (2014) Ultraviolet vision in birds: the importance of transparent eye media. Proc R Soc B 281:20132209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lovell PG, Ruxton GD, Langridge KV, Spencer KA (2013) Egg-laying substrate selection for optimal camouflage by quail. Curr Biol 23:260–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Manríquez PH, Lagos NA, Jara ME, Castilla JC (2009) Adaptive shell color plasticity during the early ontogeny of an intertidal keystone snail. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:16298–16303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall KL, Philpot KE, Stevens M (2016) Microhabitat choice in island lizards enhances camouflage against avian predators. Sci Rep 6:19815CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Maurer G, Portugal SJ, Cassey P (2011) Review: an embryo’s eye view of avian eggshell pigmentation. J Avian Biol 42:494–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayani-Parás F, Kilner RM, Stoddard MC, Rodríguez C, Drummond H (2015) Behaviorally induced camouflage: a new mechanism of avian egg protection. Am Nat 186:E91–E97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer PM, Smith LM, Ford RG, Watterson DC, McCutchen MD, Ryan MR (2009) Nest construction by a ground-nesting bird represents a potential trade-off between egg crypticity and thermoregulation. Oecologia 159:893–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Montevecchi WA (1976) Field experiments on the adaptive significance of avian eggshell pigmentation. Behaviour 58:26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreno J, Bustamante J, Viñuela J (1995) Nest maintenance and stone theft in the chinstrap penguin Pygoscelis antarctica. Polar Biol 15:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ödeen A, Håstad O (2013) The phylogenetic distribution of ultraviolet sensitivity in birds. BMC Evol Biol 13:36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Ödeen A, Håstad O, Almström P (2010) Evolution of ultraviolet vision in shorebirds (Charadriiformes). Biol Lett 6:370–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ortolani A (1999) Spots, stripes, tail tips and dark eyes: predicting the function of carnivore colour patterns using the comparative method. Biol J Linn Soc 67:433–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osorio D, Vorobyev M (2005) Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1745–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pike TW (2011) Using digital cameras to investigate animal colouration: estimating sensor sensitivity functions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Polo-Cavia N, Gomez-Mestre I (2017) Pigmentation plasticity enhances crypsis in larval newts: associated metabolic cost and background choice behaviour. Sci Rep 7:39739CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid JM, Cresswell W, Holt S, Mallanby RJ, Whitfield DP, Ruxton GD (2002) Nest scrape design and clutch heat loss in pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos). Funct Ecol 16:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruxton GD, Stevens M (2015) The evolutionary ecology of decorating behaviour. Biol Lett 11:20150325CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryer CH, Lemke JL, Boersma K, Levas S (2008) Adaptive coloration, behavior and predation vulnerability in three juvenile north Pacific flatfishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 359:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Skrade PD, Dinsmore SJ (2013) Egg crypsis in a ground-nesting shorebird influences nest survival. Ecosphere 4:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Solís JC, de Lope F (1995) Nest and egg crypsis in the ground-nesting stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus. J Avian Biol 26:135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stachowicz JJ, Hay ME (2000) Geographic variation in camouflage specialization by a decorator crab. Am Nat 156:59–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Stenzel LE, Warriner JC, Warriner JS, Wilson KS (1994) Long breeding dispersal of snowy plovers in western North America. J Anim Ecol 63:887–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stevens M, Cuthill IC (2006) Disruptive coloration, crypsis and edge detection in early visual processing. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2141–2147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stevens M, Merilaita S (2009) Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:423–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stevens M, Merilaita S (2011) Animal camouflage: mechanisms and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens M, Párraga CA, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Troscianko TS (2007) Using digital photography to study animal coloration. Biol J Linn Soc 90:211–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stevens M, Broderick AC, Godley BJ, Lown AE, Troscianko J, Weber M, Weber SB (2015) Phenotype-environment matching in sand fleas. Biol Lett 11:20150494CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens M, Troscianko J, Wilson-Aggarwal JK, Spottiswoode CN (2017) Improvement of individual camouflage through background choice in ground-nesting birds. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1325–1333CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Stoddard MC, Kupán K, Eyster HN, Rojas-Abreu W, Cruz-López M, Serrano-Meneses MA, Küpper C (2016) Camouflage and clutch survival in plovers and terns. Sci Rep 6:32059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Troscianko J, Stevens M (2015) Image calibration and analysis toolbox—a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour and pattern. Methods Ecol Evol 6:1320–1331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Troscianko J, Wilson-Aggarwal J, Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2016a) Nest covering in plovers: how modifying the visual environment influences egg camouflage. Ecol Evol 6:7536–7545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Troscianko J, Wilson-Aggarwal J, Stevens M, Spottiswoode CN (2016b) Camouflage predicts survival in ground-nesting birds. Sci Rep 6:19966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Troscianko J, Skelhorn J, Stevens M (2017) Quantifying camouflage: how to predict detectability from appearance. BMC Evol Biol 17:7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Underwood TJ, Sealy SG (2002) Adaptive significance of egg coloration. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian incubation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–298Google Scholar
  70. Uy FMK, Ravichandran S, Patel KS, Aresty J, Aresty PP, Audett RM, Chen K, Epple L, Jeffries SF, Serein GN, Tullis-Joyce P, Uy JAC (2017) Active background choice facilitates crypsis in a tropical crab. Biotropica 49:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson-Aggarwal JK, Troscianko JT, Stevens M, Spottiswoode CN (2016) Escape distance in ground-nesting birds differs with individual level of camouflage. Am Nat 188:231–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesús Gómez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Ramo
    • 1
  • Jolyon Troscianko
    • 2
  • Martin Stevens
    • 2
  • Macarena Castro
    • 3
  • Alejandro Pérez-Hurtado
    • 3
  • Gustavo Liñán-Cembrano
    • 4
  • Juan A. Amat
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ecología de Humedales, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC)Calle Américo Vespucio 26SevillaSpain
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Exeter, Penryn CampusPenrynUK
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y AmbientalesUniversidad de CádizPuerto RealSpain
  4. 4.Instituto de Microelectrónica de Sevilla (IMSE-CNM)Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) and Universidad de SevillaSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations