Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1059–1068 | Cite as

Visual illusions in predator–prey interactions: birds find moving patterned prey harder to catch

  • Liisa Hämäläinen
  • Janne Valkonen
  • Johanna Mappes
  • Bibiana RojasEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Several antipredator strategies are related to prey colouration. Some colour patterns can create visual illusions during movement (such as motion dazzle), making it difficult for a predator to capture moving prey successfully. Experimental evidence about motion dazzle, however, is still very scarce and comes only from studies using human predators capturing moving prey items in computer games. We tested a motion dazzle effect using for the first time natural predators (wild great tits, Parus major). We used artificial prey items bearing three different colour patterns: uniform brown (control), black with elongated yellow pattern and black with interrupted yellow pattern. The last two resembled colour patterns of the aposematic, polymorphic dart-poison frog Dendrobates tinctorius. We specifically tested whether an elongated colour pattern could create visual illusions when combined with straight movement. Our results, however, do not support this hypothesis. We found no differences in the number of successful attacks towards prey items with different patterns (elongated/interrupted) moving linearly. Nevertheless, both prey types were significantly more difficult to catch compared to the uniform brown prey, indicating that both colour patterns could provide some benefit for a moving individual. Surprisingly, no effect of background (complex vs. plain) was found. This is the first experiment with moving prey showing that some colour patterns can affect avian predators’ ability to capture moving prey, but the mechanisms lowering the capture rate are still poorly understood.

Keywords

Aposematism Colour polymorphism Motion dazzle Predator–prey interactions Visual illusions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to Helinä Nisu for taking care of the birds, to Morgan Brain for help during the preference tests, and to Laura Kelley for helpful comments on the manuscript. Permits for experiments with wild birds were issued by the Central Finland Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment (KESELY/1017/07.01/2010) and the National Animal Experiment Board (ESAVI-2010-087517Ym-23). The study was funded by Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo (grant to LH), and the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Biological Interactions (project SA-252411).

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

10071_2015_874_MOESM1_ESM.wmv (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (WMV 1772 kb)
10071_2015_874_MOESM2_ESM.wmv (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (WMV 1170 kb)

References

  1. Allen WL, Baddeley R, Scott-Samuel NE, Cuthill IC (2013) The evolution and function of pattern diversity in snakes. Behav Ecol 24:1237–1250. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore MR, Snowden RJ (2000) Textured backgrounds alter perceived speed. Vision Res 40:629–638. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00214-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodie ED (1989) Genetic correlations between morphology and antipredator behaviour in natural populations of the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides. Nature 342:542–543. doi: 10.1038/342542a0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brodie ED (1992) Correlational selection for color pattern and antipredator behavior in the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides. Evolution 46:1284–1298. doi: 10.2307/2409937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Bennet AT, Church SC, Hart NS, Hun S (2000) Ultraviolet vision in birds. Adv Stud Behav 29:159–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (2001) Motion discrimination and recognition. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/dittrich/
  8. Dittrich WH, Gilbert F, Green P, McGregor P, Grewcock D (1993) Imperfect mimicry: a pigeon’s perspective. Proc R Soc B 251:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green PR, Gentle L, Peake TM, Scudamore RE, McGregor PK, Gilbert F, Dittrich WH (1999) Conditioning pigeons to discriminate naturally lit insect specimens. Behav Proc 46:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatle JD, Faragher SG (1998) Slow movement increases the survivorship of a chemically defended grasshopper in predatory encounters. Oecologia 115:260–267. doi: 10.1007/s004420050515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatle JD, Salazar BA, Whitman DW (2002) Survival advantage of sluggish individuals in aggregations of aposematic prey, during encounters with ambush predators. Evol Ecol 16:415–431. doi: 10.1023/A:1020814110102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes AE et al (2014) Motion dazzle and the effects of target patterning on capture success. BMC Evol Biol 14:201. doi: 10.1186/s12862-014-0201-4 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson JF, Ingram W, Campbell HW (1976) The dorsal pigmentation pattern of snakes as an antipredatory strategy: a multivariate approach. Am Nat 110:1029–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarvis JR, Taylor NR, Prescott NB, Meeks I, Wathes CM (2002) Measuring and modelling the photopic flicker sensitivity of the chicken (Gallus g. domesticus). Vision Res 42:99–106. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00268-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelley LA, Kelley JL (2014) Animal visual illusion and confusion: the importance of a perceptual perspective. Behav Ecol 25:450–463. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J (1999) Reactions of hand-reared and wild-caught predators toward warningly colored, gregarious, and conspicuous prey. Behav Ecol 10:317–322. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.3.317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyytinen A, Brakefield PM, Lindström L, Mappes J (2004) Does predation maintain eyespot plasticity in Bicyclus anynana? Proc R Soc B 271:279–283. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2571 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakamura N, Fujita K, Ushitani T, Miyata H (2006) Perception of the standard and the reversed Muller-Lyer figures in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 120:252–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Niskanen M, Mappes J (2005) Significance of the dorsal zigzag pattern of Vipera latastei gaditana against avian predators. J Anim Ecol 74:1091–1101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01008.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nokelainen O, Valkonen J, Lindstedt C, Mappes J (2014) Changes in predator community structure shifts the efficacy of two warning signals in Arctiid moths. J Anim Ecol 83:598–605. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12169 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Noonan BP, Comeault AA (2009) The role of predator selection on polymorphic aposematic poison frogs. Biol Lett 5:51–54. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0586 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pepperberg IM, Vicinay J, Cavanagh P (2008) Processing of the Muller-Lyer illusion by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Perception 37:765–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pough FH (1976) Multiple cryptic effects of crossbanded and ringed patterns of snakes. Copeia 4:834–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poulton EB (1890) The colours of animals: their meaning and use. Especially considered in the case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench, Tubner and Co., LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rojas B, Endler JA (2013) Sexual dimorphism and intra-populational colour pattern variation in the aposematic frog Dendrobates tinctorius. Evol Ecol 27:739–753. doi: 10.1007/s10682-013-9640-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rojas B, Devillechabrolle J, Endler JA (2014) Paradox lost: variable colour-pattern geometry is associated with differences in movement in aposematic frogs. Biol Lett 10:20140193. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0193 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack. Evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Schuler W, Hesse E (1985) On the function of warning coloration: a black and yellow pattern inhibits prey-attack by naive domestic chicks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:249–255. doi: 10.1007/BF00310988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott-Samuel NE, Baddeley R, Palmer CE, Cuthill IC (2011) Dazzle camouflage affects speed perception. PLoS ONE. 6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020233
  30. Sih A (1984) The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am Nat 123:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevens M (2007) Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration. Proc R Soc B 274:1457–1464. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0220 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens M, Merilaita S (2009) Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:481–488. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0216 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens M, Yule DH, Ruxton GD (2008) Dazzle coloration and prey movement. Proc R Soc B 275:2639–2643. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0877 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens M, Searle WTL, Seymour JE, Marshall KL, Ruxton GD (2011) Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses. BMC Biol 9:81. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-9-81 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. von Helversen B, Schooler LJ, Czienskowski U (2013) Are stripes beneficial? Dazzle camouflage influences perceived speed and hit rates. PLoS ONE 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061173
  37. Watanabe S, Nakamura N, Fujita K (2011) Pigeons perceive a reversed Zollner illusion. Cognition 119:137–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Watanabe S, Nakamura N, Fujita K (2013) Bantams (Gallus gallus domesticus) also perceive a reversed Zollner illusion. Anim Cogn 16:109–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wollenberg KC, Lötters S, Mora-Ferrer C, Veith M (2008) Disentangling composite colour patterns in a poison frog species. Biol J Linn Soc 93:433–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00906.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Centre of Excellence in Biological InteractionsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations