Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching.

Effective camouflage renders a target indistinguishable from irrelevant background objects. Two interrelated but logically distinct mechanisms for this are background pattern matching (crypsis) and disruptive coloration: in the former, the animal's colours are a random sample of the background; in the latter, bold contrasting colours on the animal's periphery break up its outline. The latter has long been proposed as an explanation for some apparently conspicuous coloration in animals, and is standard textbook material. Surprisingly, only one quantitative test of the theory exists, and one experimental test of its effectiveness against non-human predators. Here we test two key predictions: that patterns on the body's outline should be particularly effective in promoting concealment and that highly contrasting colours should enhance this disruptive effect. Artificial moth-like targets were exposed to bird predation in the field, with the experimental colour patterns on the 'wings' and a dead mealworm as the edible 'body'. Survival analysis supported the predictions, indicating that disruptive coloration is an effective means of camouflage, above and beyond background pattern matching.

Cuthill IC ，Stevens M ，Sheppard J ，Maddocks T ，Párraga CA ，Troscianko TS ... -  《-》

Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching.

Natural selection shapes the evolution of anti-predator defences, such as camouflage. It is currently contentious whether crypsis and disruptive coloration are alternative mechanisms of camouflage or whether they are interrelated anti-predator defences. Disruptively coloured prey is characterized by highly contrasting patterns to conceal the body shape, whereas cryptic prey minimizes the contrasts to background. Determining bird predation of artificial moths, we found that moths which were dissimilar from the background but sported disruptive patterns on the edge of their wings survived better in heterogeneous habitats than did moths with the same patterns inside of the wings and better than cryptic moths. Despite lower contrasts to background, crypsis did not provide fitness benefits over disruptive coloration on the body outline. We conclude that disruptive coloration on the edge camouflages its bearer independent of background matching. We suggest that this result is explainable because disruptive coloration is effective by exploiting predators' cognitive mechanisms of prey recognition and not their sensory mechanisms of signal detection. Relative to disruptive patterns on the body outline, disruptive markings on the body interior are less effective. Camouflage owing to disruptive coloration on the body interior is background-specific and is as effective as crypsis in heterogeneous habitats. Hence, we hypothesize that two proximate mechanisms explain the diversity of visual anti-predator defences. First, disruptive coloration on the body outline provides camouflage independent of the background. Second, background matching and disruptive coloration on the body interior provide camouflage, but their protection is background-specific.

Schaefer HM ，Stobbe N 《-》

Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage.

Camouflage typically involves colour patterns that match the background. However, it has been argued that concealment may be achieved by strategic use of apparently conspicuous markings. Recent evidence supports the theory that the presence of contrasting patterns placed peripherally on an animal's body (disruptive coloration) provides survival advantages. However, no study has tested a key prediction from the early literature that disruptive coloration is effective even when some colour patches do not match the background and have a high contrast with both the background and adjacent pattern elements (disruptive contrast). We test this counter-intuitive idea that conspicuous patterns might aid concealment, using artificial moth-like targets with pattern elements designed to match or mismatch the average luminance (lightness) of the trees on which they were placed. Disruptive coloration was less effective when some pattern elements did not match the background luminance. However, even non-background-matching disruptive patterns reduced predation relative to equivalent non-disruptive patterns or to unpatterned controls. Therefore, concealment may still be achieved even when an animal possesses markings not found in the background. Disruptive coloration may allow animals to exploit backgrounds on which they are not perfectly matched, and to possess conspicuous markings while still retaining a degree of camouflage.

Stevens M ，Cuthill IC ，Windsor AM ，Walker HJ ... -  《-》

Disruptive camouflage impairs object recognition.

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.

Webster RJ ，Hassall C ，Herdman CM ，Godin JG ，Sherratt TN ... -  《-》

Coincident disruptive coloration.

Even if an animal matches its surroundings perfectly in colour and texture, any mismatch between the spatial phase of its pattern and that of the background, or shadow created by its three-dimensional relief, is potentially revealing. Nevertheless, for camouflage to be fully broken, the shape must be recognizable. Disruptive coloration acts against object recognition by the use of high-contrast internal colour boundaries to break up shape and form. As well as the general outline, characteristic features such as eyes and limbs must also be concealed; this can be achieved by having the colour patterns on different, but adjacent, body parts aligned to match each other (i.e. in phase). Such 'coincident disruptive coloration' ensures that there is no phase disjunction where body parts meet, and causes different sections of the body to blend perceptually. We tested this theory using field experiments with predation by wild birds on artificial moth-like targets, whose wings and (edible pastry) bodies had colour patterns that were variously coincident or not. We also carried out an experiment with humans searching for analogous targets on a computer screen. Both experiments show that coincident disruptive coloration is an effective mechanism for concealing an otherwise revealing body form.

Cuthill IC ，Székely A 《-》