Abstract
Whether hiding from predators, or avoiding battlefield casualties, camouflage is widely employed to prevent detection. Disruptive coloration is a seemingly well-known camouflage mechanism proposed to function by breaking up an object's salient features (for example their characteristic outline), rendering objects more difficult to recognize. However, while a wide range of animals are thought to evade detection using disruptive patterns, there is no direct experimental evidence that disruptive coloration impairs recognition. Using humans searching for computer-generated moth targets, we demonstrate that the number of edge-intersecting patches on a target reduces the likelihood of it being detected, even at the expense of reduced background matching. Crucially, eye-tracking data show that targets with more edge-intersecting patches were looked at for longer periods prior to attack, and passed-over more frequently during search tasks. We therefore show directly that edge patches enhance survivorship by impairing recognition, confirming that disruptive coloration is a distinct camouflage strategy, not simply an artefact of background matching.
Highlights
Camouflage is a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature, with natural selection favouring animals that can avoid being seen and recognized by predators [1,2,3]
With human subjects visually hunting for artificial moth targets displayed on computer screens [10], wild birds foraging in aviaries [11], and wild birds foraging in their natural habitats [12,13,14,15,16]
Our 63 moth targets differed in their survivorship and mean search time for those found
Summary
Camouflage is a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature, with natural selection favouring animals that can avoid being seen and recognized by predators [1,2,3]. Disruptive coloration functions by obscuring outlines and creating false boundaries, thereby preventing recognition of an animal’s salient features [1,2,3,4]. Disruptive coloration is best defined in terms of its function (impairing recognition) rather than its appearance [7,8]. Cuthill et al [9] provided the first field demonstration that artificial prey targets with contrastingly patterned edges (‘edge’ targets) had a greater survivorship under bird predation than control targets without edge-intersecting patches. There is no experimental evidence to confirm that the enhanced survivorship afforded by such markings was attained through impaired object recognition [17]. For disruptive coloration to work in the manner prescribed, object recognition must be impaired, otherwise the theory fails [17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
