Abstract
Visual crypsis of prey is determined by the interaction between an individual’s physical appearance to their predators and visual aspects of their environment. Physical size will impact visual appearance and thus potentially influence crypsis. However, research on this topic is limited, leaving the effect of size in cryptic prey largely unexplored. To identify if the success of cryptic phenotypes is size-dependent, we conducted a series of field experiments in which we exposed two types of cryptic artificial prey (uniform colored and disruptively patterned) of different sizes to free-living avian predators and recorded attack rate. Despite similar statistical power and methodology, we found increasing predation risk with increasing size only for disruptive phenotypes. Our results suggest that large sizes may break down ability for disruptive patterns to effectively break up the body outline. However, further research in more controlled conditions would be needed to distinguish the effects of initial detection and post-detection preferences on attack rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Barnett JB, Cuthill IC, Scott-Samuel NE (2017a) Distance-dependent pattern blending can camouflage salient aposematic signals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284:20170128. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0128
Barnett JB, Redfern AS, Bhattacharyya-Dickson R, Clifton O, Courty T, Ho T, Hopes A, McPhee T, Merrison K, Owen R, Scott-Samuel NE, Cuthill IC (2017b) Stripes for warning and stripes for hiding: spatial frequency and detection distance. Behav Ecol 28:373–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw168
Basolo A, Wagner WE (2004) Covariation between predation risk, body size and fin elaboration in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Biol J Linn Soc 83:87–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00369.x
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 1:1–48
Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75:385–407
Bohlin T, Tullberg BS, Merilaita S (2008) The effect of signal appearance and distance on detection risk in an aposematic butterfly larva (Parnassius apollo). Anim Behav 76:577–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.012
Caro T (2005) The adaptive significance of coloration in mammals. Bioscience 55:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0125:TASOCI]2.0.CO;2
Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London
Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Madocks T, Parraga CA (2005) Disruptive coloration and background patterns matching. Nature 434:72–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03312
Dixon SM, Baker RL (1988) Effect of size on predation risk, behavioural response to fish and cost of reduced feeding in larval Ischnura verticalis (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Oecologia 76:2000–2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379953
Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of antipredator defences. Longman, London
Elner RW, Hughes RN (1978) Energy maximization in the diet of the shore crab, Carcinus maenus. J Anim Ecol 47:103–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/3925
Emerson SB (1978) Allometry and jumping in frogs: helping the twain to meet. Evolution 32:551–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/2407721
Endler JA (1978) A predator’s view of animal color patterns. Evol Biol 11:319–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6956-5_5
Endler JA (1984) Progressive background matching in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis. Biol J Linn Soc 22:187–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1984.tb01677.x
Endler JA (1988) Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 319:505–523. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1988.0062
Fuiman LA, Magurran AE (1994) Development of predator defences in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 4:145–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044127
Gamberale G, Tullberg BS (1996) Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 263:1329–1334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0195
Gamberale G, Tullberg BS (1998) Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:889–894. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0374
Götmark F, Hohlfält A (1995) Bright male plumages and predation risk in passerine birds: are males easier to detect than females? Oikos 74:475–484. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545993
Harrison XA, Donaldson L, Correa-Cano ME, Evans J, Fisher DN, Goodwin CED, Robinson BS, Hodgson DJ, Inger R (2018) A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model interference in ecology. PeerJ 6:e4794. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4794
Higginson AD, Ruxton GD (2009) Optimal defensive coloration strategies during the growth period of prey. Evolution 61:53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00813.x
Honěk A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66:483–492. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544943
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger RM (2008) multcomp: Simultaneous inference for general linear hypotheses. http://CRAN.R-project.org. package version 0.993-1
Hultgren KM, Stachowicz JJ (2009) Evolution of decoration in majoid crabs: a comparative phylogenetic analysis of the role of body size and alternative defensive strategies. Am Nat 173:566–578
Juanes F (1994) What determines prey size selectivity in piscivorous fishes? In: Stouder DJ, Fresh KL, Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 79–100
Juanes F, Conover DO (1994) Piscivory and prey size selection in young-of-the-year bluefish: predator preference or size-dependent capture success? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 114:59–69
Karpestram E, Merilaita S, Forsman A (2014) Body size influences differently the detectabilities of color morphs of cryptic prey. Biol J Linn Soc 113:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12291
King RB (1992) Lake Erie water snakes revisited—morph specific and age-specific variation in relative crypsis. Evol Ecol 6:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02270706
King RB (1993) Color-pattern variation in lake Erie water snakes—prediction and measurement of natural selection. Evolution 47:1819–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb02324.x
Křivan V (1996) Optimal foraging and predator–prey dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 49:265–290
Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-092
Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Riipi M, Vertainen L (1999) Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397:249–251. https://doi.org/10.1038/16692
Mänd T, Tammaru T, Mappes J (2007) Size dependent predation risk in cryptic and conspicuous insects. Evol Ecol 21:485–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/16692
Merilaita S, Lind J (2005) Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 22:1563. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3000
Merilaita S, Tuomi J, Jormalainen V (1999) Optimization of cryptic coloration in heterogeneous habitats. Biol J Linn Soc 67:151–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01858.x
Norris KS, Lowe CH (1964) An analysis of background color-matching in amphibians and reptiles. Ecology 45:565–580. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936109
Oliveira FB (2005) Body size influence on defensive behaviour of Amazonian moths: an ecophysiological approach. Braz J Biol 65:1678–4375. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842005000100014
Peacor SD, Werner EE (2001) The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3904–3908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.071061998
Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.rproject.org/
Remmel T, Tammaru T (2009) Size-dependent predation risk in tree-feeding insects with different coloration strategies: a field experiment. J Anim Ecol 78:973–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01566.x
Reznick D, Endler JA (1982) The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 36:160–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408156
Ribowski A, Franck D (1993) Demonstration of strength and concealment of weakness in escalating fights of male swordtails (Xiphophorus hellerii). Ethology 93:265–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb01208.x
Roff DA (2002) Life history evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
Ruxton GD, Allen WL, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2018) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sandre SL, Tammaru T, Mand T (2007) Size-dependent coloration in larvae of Orgyia antiqua (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae): a trade-off between warning effect and detectability? Eur J Entomol 104:745–752
Schaefer MH, Stobbe N (2006) Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of 1129 background matching. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2427–2432. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3615
Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311
Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Stevens M, Cuthill IC, Windsor AMM, Walker HJ (2006) Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2433–2438. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3614
Stuart-Fox DM, Moussalli A, Johnston GR, Owens IPF (2004) Evolution of color variation in dragon lizards: quantitative tests of the role of crypsis and local adaptation. Evolution 58:1549–1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01735.x
Suzuki TN, Sakurai R (2015) Bent posture improves the protective value of bird dropping masquerading by caterpillars. Anim Behav 105:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.009
Thayer GH (1909) Concealing-coloration in the animal kingdom. Macmillan, New York
Thery M, Debut M, Gomez D, Casas J (2005) Specific color sensitivities of prey and predator explain camouflage in different visual systems. Behav Ecol 16:25–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh130
Urban MC (2007) Predator size and phenology shape prey survival in temporary ponds. Oecologia 154:571–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0856-2
Vermeij GJ (1982) Unsuccessful predation and evolution. Am Nat 120:701–720
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Ms. Pembury Smith and Prof Ruxton declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any human participants and so no informed consent was applicable to obtain.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 4.
About this article
Cite this article
Pembury Smith, M.Q.R., Ruxton, G.D. Size-dependent predation risk in cryptic prey. J Ethol 39, 191–198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-021-00691-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-021-00691-5