Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTroscianko, Jolyon
dc.contributor.authorSkelhorn, John
dc.contributor.authorStevens, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-16T12:14:37Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-16
dc.description.abstractBackground: Quantifying the conspicuousness of objects against particular backgrounds is key to understanding the evolution and adaptive value of animal coloration, and in designing effective camouflage. Quantifying detectability can reveal how colour patterns affect survival, how animals’ appearances influence habitat preferences, and how receiver visual systems work. Advances in calibrated digital imaging are enabling the capture of objective visual information, but it remains unclear which methods are best for measuring detectability. Numerous descriptions and models of appearance have been used to infer the detectability of animals, but these models are rarely empirically validated or directly compared to one another. We compared the performance of human ‘predators’ to a bank of contemporary methods for quantifying the appearance of camouflaged prey. Background matching was assessed using several established methods, including sophisticated feature-based pattern analysis, granularity approaches, and a range of luminance and contrast difference measures. Disruptive coloration is a further camouflage strategy where high contrast patterns disrupt they prey’s tell-tale outline, making it more difficult to detect. Disruptive camouflage has been studied intensely over the past decade, yet defining and measuring it have proven far more problematic. We assessed how well existing disruptive coloration measures predicted capture times. Additionally, we developed a new method for measuring edge disruption based on an understanding of sensory processing and the way in which false edges are thought to interfere with animal outlines. Results: Our novel measure of disruptive coloration was the best predictor of capture times overall, highlighting the importance of false edges in concealment over and above pattern or luminance matching. Conclusions: The efficacy of our new method for measuring disruptive camouflage together with its biological plausibility and computational efficiency represents a substantial advance in our understanding of the measurement, mechanism and definition of disruptive camouflage. Our study also provides the first test of the efficacy of many established methods for quantifying how conspicuous animals are against particular backgrounds. The validation of these methods opens up new lines of investigation surrounding the form and function of different types of camouflage, and may apply more broadly to the evolution of any visual signal.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipBBSRCen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/24464
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/24895
dc.rightsThe dataset is released under Creative Commons CC0. The software scripts are distributed under Creative Commons 4.0 BY-SA-NC, i.e. attribution, share-alike, and non-commercial terms.en_GB
dc.subjectcamouflageen_GB
dc.subjectvisionen_GB
dc.subjectbackground matchingen_GB
dc.subjectpattern analysisen_GB
dc.titleQuantifying camouflage: how to predict detectability from appearance (dataset and scripts)en_GB
dc.typeDataseten_GB
dc.typeSoftwareen_GB
dc.descriptionData and scripts associated with our paper. The .txt scripts are written in ImageJ macro language. The .ijm scripts calculate SIFT in FIJI.en_GB
dc.descriptionThe article associated with this dataset is in ORE: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/24895
dc.identifier.journalBMC Evolutionary Biologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record