Title |
Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Biology, November 2011
|
DOI | 10.1186/1741-7007-9-81 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Martin Stevens, W Tom L Searle, Jenny E Seymour, Kate LA Marshall, Graeme D Ruxton |
Abstract |
Camouflage patterns that hinder detection and/or recognition by antagonists are widely studied in both human and animal contexts. Patterns of contrasting stripes that purportedly degrade an observer's ability to judge the speed and direction of moving prey ('motion dazzle') are, however, rarely investigated. This is despite motion dazzle having been fundamental to the appearance of warships in both world wars and often postulated as the selective agent leading to repeated patterns on many animals (such as zebra and many fish, snake, and invertebrate species). Such patterns often appear conspicuous, suggesting that protection while moving by motion dazzle might impair camouflage when stationary. However, the relationship between motion dazzle and camouflage is unclear because disruptive camouflage relies on high-contrast markings. In this study, we used a computer game with human subjects detecting and capturing either moving or stationary targets with different patterns, in order to provide the first empirical exploration of the interaction of these two protective coloration mechanisms. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 34 | 41% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
Comoros | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Central African Republic | 1 | 1% |
Iceland | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 40 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 75 | 91% |
Scientists | 5 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 1% |
Hungary | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 177 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 42 | 23% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 20% |
Student > Master | 27 | 15% |
Researcher | 20 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 5% |
Other | 25 | 14% |
Unknown | 24 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 96 | 52% |
Psychology | 8 | 4% |
Environmental Science | 8 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
Neuroscience | 6 | 3% |
Other | 29 | 16% |
Unknown | 31 | 17% |