IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0011446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Camouflage Effects of Various Colour-Marking Morphs against Different Microhabitat Backgrounds in a Polymorphic Pygmy Grasshopper Tetrix japonica

Author

Listed:
  • Kaori Tsurui
  • Atsushi Honma
  • Takayoshi Nishida

Abstract

Background: Colour-marking polymorphism is widely distributed among cryptic species. To account for the adaptive significance of such polymorphisms, several hypotheses have been proposed to date. Although these hypotheses argue over the degree of camouflage effects of marking morphs (and the interactions between morphs and their microhabitat backgrounds), as far as we know, most empirical evidence has been provided under unnatural conditions (i.e., using artificial prey). Methodology/Principal Findings: Tetrix japonica, a pygmy grasshopper, is highly polymorphic in colour-markings and occurs in both sand and grass microhabitats. Even within a microhabitat, T. japonica is highly polymorphic. Using humans as dummy predators and printed photographs in which various morphs of grasshoppers were placed against different backgrounds, we addressed three questions to test the neutral, background heterogeneity, and differential crypsis hypotheses in four marking-type morphs: 1) do the morphs differ in the degree of crypsis in each microhabitat, 2) are different morphs most cryptic in specific backgrounds of the microhabitats, and 3) does the morph frequency reflect the degree of crypsis? Conclusions/Significance: The degree of camouflage differed among the four morphs; therefore, the neutral hypothesis was rejected. Furthermore, the order of camouflage advantage among morphs differed depending on the two types of backgrounds (sand and grass), although the grass background consistently provided greater camouflage effects. Thus, based on our results, we could not reject the background heterogeneity hypothesis. Under field conditions, the more cryptic morphs comprised a minority of the population. Overall, our results demonstrate that the different morphs were not equivalent in the degree of crypsis, but the degree of camouflage of the morphs was not consistent with the morph frequency. These findings suggest that trade-offs exist between the camouflage benefit of body colouration and other fitness components, providing a better understanding of the adaptive significance of colour-markings and presumably supporting the differential crypsis hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaori Tsurui & Atsushi Honma & Takayoshi Nishida, 2010. "Camouflage Effects of Various Colour-Marking Morphs against Different Microhabitat Backgrounds in a Polymorphic Pygmy Grasshopper Tetrix japonica," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-7, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011446
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011446
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011446&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0011446?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Innes C. Cuthill & Martin Stevens & Jenna Sheppard & Tracey Maddocks & C. Alejandro Párraga & Tom S. Troscianko, 2005. "Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7029), pages 72-74, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer L Kelley & Ian Taylor & Nathan S Hart & Julian C Partridge, 2017. "Aquatic prey use countershading camouflage to match the visual background," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1314-1322.
    2. repec:hal:journl:hal-04683689 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Melia G. Nafus & Jennifer M. Germano & Jeanette A. Perry & Brian D. Todd & Allyson Walsh & Ronald R. Swaisgood, 2015. "Hiding in plain sight: a study on camouflage and habitat selection in a slow-moving desert herbivore," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1389-1394.
    4. Dylan H N Thomas & Karin Kjernsmo & Nicholas E Scott-Samuel & Heather M Whitney & Innes C Cuthill, 2023. "Interactions between color and gloss in iridescent camouflage," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(5), pages 751-758.
    5. May, R. & Reitan, O. & Bevanger, K. & Lorentsen, S.-H. & Nygård, T., 2015. "Mitigating wind-turbine induced avian mortality: Sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive constraints and options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 170-181.
    6. Jolyon Troscianko & Jared Wilson-Aggarwal & David Griffiths & Claire N. Spottiswoode & Martin Stevens, 2017. "Relative advantages of dichromatic and trichromatic color vision in camouflage breaking," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 556-564.
    7. Alyssa S Hess & Andrew J Wismer & Corey J Bohil & Mark B Neider, 2016. "On the Hunt: Searching for Poorly Defined Camouflaged Targets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Ossi Nokelainen & Sanni A. Silvasti & Sharon Y. Strauss & Niklas Wahlberg & Johanna Mappes, 2024. "Predator selection on phenotypic variability of cryptic and aposematic moths," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0011446. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.