Crypsis

Last updated

Mossy leaf-tailed gecko (Uroplatus sikorae) Montagne d'Ambre 2.jpg
Hiding
Mossy leaf-tailed gecko (Uroplatus sikorae) Montagne d'Ambre 3.jpg
Revealing itself
Cryptic behavior. Mossy leaf-tailed gecko ( Uroplatus sikorae ) Montagne d’Ambre, Madagascar, showing the camouflage disguise using the dermal flap.

In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an animal or a plant [1] to avoid observation or detection by other animals. It may be a predation strategy or an antipredator adaptation. Methods include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle and mimicry. Crypsis can involve visual, olfactory (with pheromones) or auditory concealment. When it is visual, the term cryptic coloration, effectively a synonym for animal camouflage, is sometimes used, but many different methods of camouflage are employed by animals or plants. [1]

Contents

Overview

There is a strong evolutionary pressure for animals to blend into their environment or conceal their shape, for prey animals to avoid predators and for predators to be able to avoid detection by prey. Exceptions include large herbivores without natural enemies, brilliantly colored birds that rely on flight to escape predators, and venomous or otherwise powerfully armed animals with warning coloration. Cryptic animals include the tawny frogmouth (feather patterning resembles bark), the tuatara (hides in burrows all day; nocturnal), some jellyfish (transparent), the leafy sea dragon, and the flounder (covers itself in sediment).

Methods

A Draco lizard showing camouflage methods including background matching, disruptive coloration, reduction of shadow, and cryptic behavior in Bandipur National Park 2005-Draco-dussumieri.jpg
A Draco lizard showing camouflage methods including background matching, disruptive coloration, reduction of shadow, and cryptic behavior in Bandipur National Park

Methods of crypsis include (visual) camouflage, nocturnality, and subterranean lifestyle. Camouflage can be achieved by a wide variety of methods, from disruptive coloration to transparency and some forms of mimicry, even in habitats like the open sea where there is no background. [2] [3] [4]

As a strategy, crypsis is used by predators against prey and by prey against predators. [2]

Crypsis also applies to eggs [5] and pheromone production. [6] Crypsis can in principle involve visual, olfactory, or auditory camouflage. [7]

Visual

Camouflage allows animals like this disruptively-patterned spider to capture prey more easily. Jumping spider with prey.jpg
Camouflage allows animals like this disruptively-patterned spider to capture prey more easily.

Many animals have evolved so that they visually resemble their surroundings by using any of the many methods of natural camouflage that may match the color and texture of the surroundings (cryptic coloration) and/or break up the visual outline of the animal itself (disruptive coloration). Such animals, like the tawny dragon lizard, may resemble rocks, sand, twigs, leaves, and even bird droppings (mimesis). Other methods including transparency and silvering are widely used by marine animals. [8]

Some animals change color in changing environments seasonally, as in ermine and snowshoe hare, or far more rapidly with chromatophores in their integuments, as in chameleon and cephalopods such as squid.

Countershading, the use of different colors on upper and lower surfaces in graduating tones from a light belly to a darker back, is common in the sea and on land. It is sometimes called Thayer's law, after the American artist Abbott Handerson Thayer, who published a paper on the form in 1896 that explained that countershading paints out shadows to make solid objects appear flat, reversing the way that artists use paint to make flat paintings contain solid objects. Where the background is brighter than is possible even with white pigment, counter-illumination in marine animals, such as squid, can use light to match the background.

Some animals actively camouflage themselves with local materials. The decorator crabs attach plants, animals, small stones, or shell fragments to their carapaces to provide camouflage that matches the local environment. Some species preferentially select stinging animals such as sea anemones or noxious plants, benefiting from aposematism as well as or instead of crypsis. [9]

Olfactory

Some animals, in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, appear to camouflage their odor, which might otherwise attract predators. [10] Numerous arthropods, both insects and spiders, mimic ants, whether to avoid predation, to hunt ants, or (as in the large blue butterfly caterpillar) to trick the ants into feeding them. [11] Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) may exhibit chemical crypsis, making them undetectable to frogs and insects colonizing ponds. [12] Trained dogs and meerkats, both scent-oriented predators, have been shown to have difficulty detecting puff adders, whose strategy of ambushing prey necessitates concealment from both predators and prey. [13]

Auditory

Some insects, notably some Noctuid moths, (such as the large yellow underwing), and some tiger moths, (such as the garden tiger), were originally theorized to defend themselves against predation by echolocating bats, both by passively absorbing sound with soft, fur-like body coverings and by actively creating sounds to mimic echoes from other locations or objects. The active strategy was described as a "phantom echo" that might therefore represent "auditory crypsis" with alternative theories about interfering with the bats' echolocation ("jamming"). [14] [15]

Subsequent research has provided evidence for only two functions of moth sounds, neither of which involve "auditory crypsis". Tiger moth species appear to cluster into two distinct groups. One type produces sounds as acoustic aposematism, warning the bats that the moths are unpalatable, [16] or at least performing as acoustic mimics of unpalatable moths. [17] The other type uses sonar jamming. In the latter type of moth, detailed analyses failed to support a "phantom echo" mechanism underlying sonar jamming, but instead pointed towards echo interference. [18]

Effects

There is often a self-perpetuating co-evolution, or evolutionary arms race, between the perceptive abilities of animals attempting to detect the cryptic animal and the cryptic characteristics of the hiding species. [19] Different aspects of crypsis and sensory abilities may be more or less pronounced in given predator-prey species pairs.

Zoologists need special methods to study cryptic animals, including biotelemetry techniques such as radio tracking, mark and recapture, and enclosures or exclosures. Cryptic animals tend to be overlooked in studies of biodiversity and ecological risk assessment.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Camouflage</span> Concealment in plain sight by any means, e.g. colour, pattern and shape

Camouflage is the use of any combination of materials, coloration, or illumination for concealment, either by making animals or objects hard to see, or by disguising them as something else. Examples include the leopard's spotted coat, the battledress of a modern soldier, and the leaf-mimic katydid's wings. A third approach, motion dazzle, confuses the observer with a conspicuous pattern, making the object visible but momentarily harder to locate, as well as making general aiming easier. The majority of camouflage methods aim for crypsis, often through a general resemblance to the background, high contrast disruptive coloration, eliminating shadow, and countershading. In the open ocean, where there is no background, the principal methods of camouflage are transparency, silvering, and countershading, while the ability to produce light is among other things used for counter-illumination on the undersides of cephalopods such as squid. Some animals, such as chameleons and octopuses, are capable of actively changing their skin pattern and colours, whether for camouflage or for signalling. It is possible that some plants use camouflage to evade being eaten by herbivores.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mimicry</span> Imitation of another species for selective advantage

In evolutionary biology, mimicry is an evolved resemblance between an organism and another object, often an organism of another species. Mimicry may evolve between different species, or between individuals of the same species. Often, mimicry functions to protect a species from predators, making it an anti-predator adaptation. Mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result changes its behaviour in a way that provides a selective advantage to the mimic. The resemblances that evolve in mimicry can be visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, or electric, or combinations of these sensory modalities. Mimicry may be to the advantage of both organisms that share a resemblance, in which case it is a form of mutualism; or mimicry can be to the detriment of one, making it parasitic or competitive. The evolutionary convergence between groups is driven by the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Birds, for example, use sight to identify palatable insects and butterflies, whilst avoiding the noxious ones. Over time, palatable insects may evolve to resemble noxious ones, making them mimics and the noxious ones models. In the case of mutualism, sometimes both groups are referred to as "co-mimics". It is often thought that models must be more abundant than mimics, but this is not so. Mimicry may involve numerous species; many harmless species such as hoverflies are Batesian mimics of strongly defended species such as wasps, while many such well-defended species form Müllerian mimicry rings, all resembling each other. Mimicry between prey species and their predators often involves three or more species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Batesian mimicry</span> Bluffing imitation of a strongly defended species

Batesian mimicry is a form of mimicry where a harmless species has evolved to imitate the warning signals of a harmful species directed at a predator of them both. It is named after the English naturalist Henry Walter Bates, after his work on butterflies in the rainforests of Brazil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-predator adaptation</span> Defensive feature of prey for selective advantage

Anti-predator adaptations are mechanisms developed through evolution that assist prey organisms in their constant struggle against predators. Throughout the animal kingdom, adaptations have evolved for every stage of this struggle, namely by avoiding detection, warding off attack, fighting back, or escaping when caught.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Müllerian mimicry</span> Mutually beneficial mimicry of strongly defended species

Müllerian mimicry is a natural phenomenon in which two or more well-defended species, often foul-tasting and sharing common predators, have come to mimic each other's honest warning signals, to their mutual benefit. The benefit to Müllerian mimics is that predators only need one unpleasant encounter with one member of a set of Müllerian mimics, and thereafter avoid all similar coloration, whether or not it belongs to the same species as the initial encounter. It is named after the German naturalist Fritz Müller, who first proposed the concept in 1878, supporting his theory with the first mathematical model of frequency-dependent selection, one of the first such models anywhere in biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aposematism</span> Honest signalling of an animals powerful defences

Aposematism is the advertising by an animal to potential predators that it is not worth attacking or eating. This unprofitability may consist of any defenses which make the prey difficult to kill and eat, such as toxicity, venom, foul taste or smell, sharp spines, or aggressive nature. These advertising signals may take the form of conspicuous coloration, sounds, odours, or other perceivable characteristics. Aposematic signals are beneficial for both predator and prey, since both avoid potential harm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ambush predator</span> Predator that sits and waits for prey to come to it

Ambush predators or sit-and-wait predators are carnivorous animals that capture or trap prey via stealth, luring or by strategies utilizing an element of surprise. Unlike pursuit predators, who chase to capture prey using sheer speed or endurance, ambush predators avoid fatigue by staying in concealment, waiting patiently for the prey to get near, before launching a sudden overwhelming attack that quickly incapacitates and captures the prey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decorator crab</span> Self-camouflaging animals

Decorator crabs are crabs of several different species, belonging to the superfamily Majoidea, that use materials from their environment to hide from, or ward off, predators. They decorate themselves by sticking mostly sedentary animals and plants to their bodies as camouflage, or if the attached organisms are noxious, to ward off predators through aposematism.

Prey detection is the process by which predators are able to detect and locate their prey via sensory signals. This article treats predation in its broadest sense, i.e. where one organism eats another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal coloration</span> General appearance of an animal

Animal colouration is the general appearance of an animal resulting from the reflection or emission of light from its surfaces. Some animals are brightly coloured, while others are hard to see. In some species, such as the peafowl, the male has strong patterns, conspicuous colours and is iridescent, while the female is far less visible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Underwater camouflage</span> Camouflage in water, mainly by transparency, reflection, counter-illumination

Underwater camouflage is the set of methods of achieving crypsis—avoidance of observation—that allows otherwise visible aquatic organisms to remain unnoticed by other organisms such as predators or prey.

Insects have a wide variety of predators, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, carnivorous plants, and other arthropods. The great majority (80–99.99%) of individuals born do not survive to reproductive age, with perhaps 50% of this mortality rate attributed to predation. In order to deal with this ongoing escapist battle, insects have evolved a wide range of defense mechanisms. The only restraint on these adaptations is that their cost, in terms of time and energy, does not exceed the benefit that they provide to the organism. The further that a feature tips the balance towards beneficial, the more likely that selection will act upon the trait, passing it down to further generations. The opposite also holds true; defenses that are too costly will have a little chance of being passed down. Examples of defenses that have withstood the test of time include hiding, escape by flight or running, and firmly holding ground to fight as well as producing chemicals and social structures that help prevent predation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Structures built by animals</span>

Structures built by non-human animals, often called animal architecture, are common in many species. Examples of animal structures include termite mounds, ant hills, wasp and beehives, burrow complexes, beaver dams, elaborate nests of birds, and webs of spiders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disruptive coloration</span> Camouflage to break up an objects outlines

Disruptive coloration is a form of camouflage that works by breaking up the outlines of an animal, soldier or military vehicle with a strongly contrasting pattern. It is often combined with other methods of crypsis including background colour matching and countershading; special cases are coincident disruptive coloration and the disruptive eye mask seen in some fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. It appears paradoxical as a way of not being seen, since disruption of outlines depends on high contrast, so the patches of colour are themselves conspicuous.

<i>Adaptive Coloration in Animals</i> 1940 textbook on camouflage, mimicry and aposematism by Hugh Cott

Adaptive Coloration in Animals is a 500-page textbook about camouflage, warning coloration and mimicry by the Cambridge zoologist Hugh Cott, first published during the Second World War in 1940; the book sold widely and made him famous.

<i>The Colours of Animals</i> 1890 book by Edward Bagnall Poulton

The Colours of Animals is a zoology book written in 1890 by Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton (1856–1943). It was the first substantial textbook to argue the case for Darwinian selection applying to all aspects of animal coloration. The book also pioneered the concept of frequency-dependent selection and introduced the term "aposematism".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deimatic behaviour</span> Bluffing display of an animal used to startle or scare a predator

Deimatic behaviour or startle display means any pattern of bluffing behaviour in an animal that lacks strong defences, such as suddenly displaying conspicuous eyespots, to scare off or momentarily distract a predator, thus giving the prey animal an opportunity to escape. The term deimatic or dymantic originates from the Greek δειματόω (deimatóo), meaning "to frighten".

Deception in animals is the transmission of misinformation by one animal to another, of the same or different species, in a way that propagates beliefs that are not true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coloration evidence for natural selection</span> Early evidence for Darwinism from animal coloration

Animal coloration provided important early evidence for evolution by natural selection, at a time when little direct evidence was available. Three major functions of coloration were discovered in the second half of the 19th century, and subsequently used as evidence of selection: camouflage ; mimicry, both Batesian and Müllerian; and aposematism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-decoration camouflage</span> Camouflage by attaching local materials to ones body

Self-decoration camouflage is a method of camouflage in which animals or soldiers select materials, sometimes living, from the environment and attach these to themselves for concealment.

References

  1. 1 2 Gianoli, Ernesto; Carrasco-Urra, Fernando (2014). "Leaf Mimicry in a Climbing Plant Protects against Herbivory". Current Biology. 24 (9): 984–987. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.010 . PMID   24768053.
  2. 1 2 Zuanon, J.; I. Sazima (2006). "The almost invisible league: crypsis and association between minute fishes and shrimps as a possible defence against visually hunting predators". Neotropical Ichthyology. 4 (2): 219–224. doi: 10.1590/s1679-62252006000200008 .
  3. Allaby, Michael (2014). Crypsis (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  4. Allaby, Michael (2015). Crypsis (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  5. Nguyen, L. P.; et al. (2007). "Using digital photographs to evaluate the effectiveness of plover egg crypsis". Journal of Wildlife Management. 71 (6): 2084–2089. Bibcode:2007JWMan..71.2084N. doi:10.2193/2006-471. S2CID   83705425.
  6. Raffa, K. R.; et al. (2007). "Can chemical communication be cryptic? Adaptations by herbivores to natural enemies exploiting prey semiochemistry". Oecologia. 153 (4): 1009–1019. Bibcode:2007Oecol.153.1009R. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0786-z. PMID   17618465. S2CID   16437625.
  7. "Definition of Crypsis". Amateur Entomologists' Society. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
  8. "All Lives Transform:Adaptation- Mimicry". Morning-earth.org. February 14, 2007. Archived from the original on February 18, 2012. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
  9. Hultgren, Kristin; Stachowicz, Jay; Stevens, M. & Merilaita, S. (2011). "Animal Camouflage" (PDF). Camouflage in decorator crabs: Camouflage in decorator crabs. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 15, 2017. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
  10. Michael R. Conover. Predator-Prey Dynamics: the role of olfaction. CRC Press. 2007. ISBN   978-0-8493-9270-2
  11. Donisthorpe, Horace (January 1922). "Mimicry of Ants by Other Arthropods". Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London. 69 (3–4): 307–311. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1922.tb02812.x.
  12. Resetarits, William J. Jr.; Binckley, Christopher A. (2013). "Is the pirate really a ghost? Evidence for generalized chemical camouflage in an aquatic predator, pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus" (PDF). The American Naturalist. 181 (5): 690–699. doi:10.1086/670016. PMID   23594551. S2CID   26747440. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 4, 2013.
  13. Miller, Ashadee Kay; Maritz, Bryan; McKay, Shannon; Glaudas, Xavier; Alexander, Graham J. (December 22, 2015). "An ambusher's arsenal: chemical crypsis in the puff adder (Bitis arietans)". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. The Royal Society. 282 (1821): 20152182. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2182 . ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   4707760 . PMID   26674950.
  14. Miller, Lee A.; Surlykke, Annemarie (July 2001). "How Some Insects Detect and Avoid Being Eaten by Bats: Tactics and Countertactics of Prey and Predator" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (7): 570–581. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0570:HSIDAA]2.0.CO;2 .
  15. Griffin, Donald R. (July 2001). "Full Access Return to the Magic Well: Echolocation Behavior of Bats and Responses of Insect Prey". BioScience. 51 (7): 555–556. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0555:RTTMWE]2.0.CO;2 . JSTOR   10.1641/0006-3568%282001%29051%5B0555%3ARTTMWE%5D2.0.CO%3B2.
  16. Hristov, N. I.; Conner, W.E. (2005). "Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat–tiger moth arms race". Naturwissenschaften . 92 (4): 164–169. Bibcode:2005NW.....92..164H. doi:10.1007/s00114-005-0611-7. PMID   15772807. S2CID   18306198.
  17. Barber, J. R.; Conner, W. E. (2007). "Acoustic mimicry in a predator–prey interaction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (22): 9331–9334. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.9331B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703627104 . PMC   1890494 . PMID   17517637.
  18. Corcoran, A.J.; Conner, W.E.; Barber, J.R. (2010). "Anti-bat tiger moth sounds: Form and function". Current Zoology. 56 (3): 358–369. doi: 10.1093/czoolo/56.3.358 .
  19. Franks, D. W.; Noble, J. (2004). "Warning signals and predator-prey coevolution". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 271 (1550): 1859–1865. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2795. PMC   1691800 . PMID   15315903.