IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i1p25-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Specific color sensitivities of prey and predator explain camouflage in different visual systems

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Théry
  • Martine Debut
  • Doris Gomez
  • Jérôme Casas

Abstract

In situations of aggressive mimicry, predators adapt their color to that of the substrate on which they sit for hunting, a behavior that is presumed to hide them from prey as well as from their own predators. Females of few crab-spider species encounter such situations when lying on flowers to ambush pollinators. To evaluate the efficiency of spider camouflage on flowers, we measured by spectroradiometry adult female Thomisus onustus and marguerite daisies, Leucanthemum vulgare. We compared chromatic contrast (color used for short-range detection) of each pair of spider and flower to detection thresholds computed in the visual systems of both Hymenopteran prey and passerine bird predator. We also computed achromatic contrast (brightness) used for long-range detection. In both visual systems, each individual spider was efficiently matching the precise color of the flower center on which it was hunting. Being significantly darker than flowers, crab-spiders could in theory be detected at long range by either predator or prey using achromatic contrast. However, long-range detection is unlikely, owing to small spider size. Spiders also generated significant chromatic and achromatic contrasts to both Hymenoptera and bird when moving on flower periphery. Our study is the first to identify which photoreceptors of both prey and predator are involved in camouflage. The analysis suggests more research on bird predation and vision to determine to which extent bird predators effectively constrain spider crypsis. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Théry & Martine Debut & Doris Gomez & Jérôme Casas, 2005. "Specific color sensitivities of prey and predator explain camouflage in different visual systems," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 25-29, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:25-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:25-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.