Nina Stobbe

A large variety of predatory species rely on their visual abilities to locate their prey. However, the search for prey may be hampered by prey camouflage. The most prominent example of concealing coloration is background-matching prey coloration characterized by a strong visual resemblance of prey to the background. Even though this principle of camouflage was recognized to efficiently work in predator avoidance a long time ago, the underlying mechanisms are not very well known. In this study, we assessed whether blue tits ( Cyanistes caeruleus ) use chromatic cues in the search for prey. We used two prey types that were achromatically identical but differed in chromatic properties in the UV/blue range and presented them on two achromatically identical backgrounds. The backgrounds had either the same chromatic properties as the prey items (matching combination) or differed in their chromatic properties (mismatching combination). Our results show that birds use chromatic cues in the search for mismatching prey, whereupon chromatic contrast leads to a ‘pop-out’ of the prey item from the background. When prey was presented on a matching background, search times were significantly higher. Interestingly, search for more chromatic prey on the matching background was easier than search for less chromatic prey on the matching background. Our results indicate that birds use both achromatic and chromatic cues when searching for prey, and that the combination of both cues might be helpful in the search task.

Many prey species have evolved defensive colour patterns to avoid attacks. One type of camouflage, disruptive coloration, relies on contrasting patterns that hinder predators' ability to recognize an object. While high contrasts are used to facilitate detection in many visual communication systems, they are thought to provide misleading information about prey appearance in disruptive patterns. A fundamental tenet in disruptive coloration theory is the principle of ‘maximum disruptive contrast’, i.e. disruptive patterns are more effective when higher contrasts are involved. We tested this principle in highly contrasting stripes that have often been described as disruptive patterns. Varying the strength of chromatic contrast between stripes and adjacent pattern elements in artificial butterflies, we found a strong negative correlation between survival probability and chromatic contrast strength. We conclude that too high a contrast leads to increased conspicuousness rather than to effective camouflage. However, artificial butterflies that sported contrasts similar to those of the model speciesLimenitis camillasurvived equally well as background-matching butterflies without these stripes. Contrasting stripes do thus not necessarily increase predation rates. This result may provide new insights into the design and characteristics of a range of colour patterns such as sexual, mimetic and aposematic signals.