Search

Motion is generally assumed to "break" camouflage. However, although camouflage cannot conceal a group of moving animals, it may impair a predator's ability to single one out for attack, even if that discrimination is not based on a color difference. Here, we use a computer-based task in which humans had to detect the odd one out among moving objects, with "oddity" based on shape. All objects were either patterned or plain, and either matched the background or not. We show that there are advantages of matching both groupmates and the background. However, when patterned objects are on a plain background (i.e., no background matching), the advantage of being among similarly patterned distractors is only realized when the group size is larger (10 compared to 5). In a second experiment, we present a paradigm for testing how coloration interferes with target-distractor discrimination, based on an adaptive staircase procedure for establishing the threshold. We show that when the predator only has a short time for decision-making, displaying a similar pattern to the distractors and the background affords protection even when the difference in shape between target and distractors is large. We conclude that, even though motion breaks camouflage, being camouflaged could help group-living animals reduce the risk of being singled out for attack by predators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nearly all research on camouflage has investigated its effectiveness for concealing stationary objects. However, animals have to move, and patterns that only work when the subject is static will heavily constrain behaviour. We investigated the effects of different camouflages on the three stages of predation--detection, identification and capture--in a computer-based task with humans. An initial experiment tested seven camouflage strategies on static stimuli. In line with previous literature, background-matching and disruptive patterns were found to be most successful. Experiment 2 showed that if stimuli move, an isolated moving object on a stationary background cannot avoid detection or capture regardless of the type of camouflage. Experiment 3 used an identification task and showed that while camouflage is unable to slow detection or capture, camouflaged targets are harder to identify than uncamouflaged targets when similar background objects are present. The specific details of the camouflage patterns have little impact on this effect. If one has to move, camouflage cannot impede detection; but if one is surrounded by similar targets (e.g. other animals in a herd, or moving background distractors), then camouflage can slow identification. Despite previous assumptions, motion does not entirely ‘break' camouflage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]