Abstract
AbstractAnimal camouflage has long been used to illustrate the power of natural selection, and provides an excellent testbed for investigating the trade‐offs affecting the adaptive value of colour. However, the contemporary study of camouflage extends beyond evolutionary biology, co‐opting knowledge, theory and methods from sensory biology, perceptual and cognitive psychology, computational neuroscience and engineering. This is because camouflage is an adaptation to the perception and cognition of the species (one or more) from which concealment is sought. I review the different ways in which camouflage manipulates and deceives perceptual and cognitive mechanisms, identifying how, and where in the sequence of signal processing, strategies such as transparency, background matching, disruptive coloration, distraction marks, countershading and masquerade have their effects. As such, understanding how camouflage evolves and functions not only requires an understanding of animal sensation and cognition, it sheds light on perception in other species.
Highlights
Background matchingIf one were able to ask Erasmus Darwin what observation had led him to the statement quoted at the start of this review, he’d probably say that animals are often the same colour as their backgrounds and this makes them hard to see
While there is no good evidence for, or against, such patterns reducing shipping losses in wartime, or protecting animals in the wild, there is evidence for the proposed effects in laboratory experiments on humans (Stevens, Yule & Ruxton, 2008; Scott-Samuel et al, 2011; Hughes, Troscianko & Stevens, 2014). While these effects of coloration certainly count as deception through manipulation of perception, and the word camouflage is derived from the French colloquialism camoufler, to deceive, contemporary usage limits camouflage to strategies for avoidance of detection and recognition (Stevens & Merilaita, 2011; Ruxton et al, 2018)
Colour change (Umbers et al, 2014; Duarte, Flores & Stevens, 2017), substrate selection in relation to phenotype (e.g. Kang et al, 2012; Kjernsmo & Merilaita, 2012; Lovell et al, 2013; Marshall, Philpot & Stevens, 2016; Smithers et al, 2018), and orientation behaviour to match the orientation of substrate textures (Kang et al, 2012, 2014a, 2014b), are powerful evidence for the importance of background matching for concealment
Summary
‘The colours of many animals seem adapted to their purposes of concealing themselves, either to avoid danger, or to spring upon their prey’ (Darwin, 1794). While there is no good evidence for, or against, such patterns reducing shipping losses in wartime, or protecting animals in the wild, there is evidence for the proposed effects in laboratory experiments on humans (Stevens, Yule & Ruxton, 2008; Scott-Samuel et al, 2011; Hughes, Troscianko & Stevens, 2014) While these effects of coloration certainly count as deception through manipulation of perception, and the word camouflage is derived from the French colloquialism camoufler, to deceive, contemporary usage limits camouflage to strategies for avoidance of detection and recognition (Stevens & Merilaita, 2011; Ruxton et al, 2018). Whether silvering acts as camouflage is as yet unproven (Johnsen et al, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
