(2005); disruptive markings provide a significant survival advantage against avian predators compared to targets with background-matching patterns that are not placed disruptively (see also Schaefer & Stobbe (in press)). Furthermore, targets with highly contrasting disruptive patterns survived significantly better than equivalent low-contrast patterns, supporting the disruptive contrast hypothesis. This suggests that when an animal benefits from having some conspicuous markings (e.g. The study site contains a range of avian predators and we have witnessed a range of birds taking the ‘prey’ in various similar experiments (see Cuthill et al. Personal experience confirmed this (without accurate maps, the targets would have been very hard to relocate). From our reading of Thayer (1909), and some of Cott's (1940) diagrams (e.g. One form of coincident disruptive coloration has special importance. Using studies of both real animals and artificial systems, this book synthesises the current state of play in camouflage research and understanding. The low density of targets and the individually distinct patterns on each replicate also served to minimize this possibility. for display), then by twinning them with background-matching colours and placing the conspicuous elements disruptively, it can gain partial camouflage. Least-squares regression was used to fit a power function to the relationship between cone-catch and grey value, and the fitted curve was used for calibration (r2 values greater than 0.98). If an animal or object possesses markings which match a random sample of the background (crypsis), then some markings will sometimes intersect the outline of the body in a disruptive fashion purely by chance. Long gaps without reduced survival correspond to overnight, when targets were not checked. 2003). Thayer (1909) argued that disruptive coloration may allow animals found on a range of different backgrounds to achieve camouflage on each, and further, enable them to combine camouflage with other potentially conspicuous forms of coloration (such as warning colours and sexually selected colour patterns). The markings necessarily have high contrast and are thus in themselves conspicuous. Disruptive colouration provides camouflage independent of background matching. With some artistic license, it is possible to sort these images into the three basic pattern … It is notable that the mealworm–wing contrast in the average non-matching treatment (19.5 versus 17.5%) was far smaller than in the average matching treatment (19.5 versus 8%), and yet the survival of the latter treatment was higher (figure 1). We thank Tom Troscianko and Alejandro Párraga for their helpful advice. Figure 2 Survival plot of the experimental treatments (top to bottom: average matching (AM), average non-matching (ANM), edge matching (EM), edge non-matching (ENM), inside matching (IM), inside non-matching (INM)). Overall, our results provide further support for the theory of disruptive coloration, and show that it is a method of concealment far more resilient to potentially negative factors, such as non-background-matching components, than is crypsis alone. Disruptive colouration provides camouflage independent of background matching. 2005; Merilaita & Lind 2005, 2006; Stevens et al. It was developed and tested during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Disruptive coloration (also known as disruptive camouflage or disruptive patterning) is a form of camouflage that works by breaking up the outlines of an animal, soldier or military vehicle with a strongly contrasting pattern. In this study, we directly test whether all components of camouflage need to match the background for concealment to be effective or whether, as the early literature proposed (Poulton 1890; Thayer 1909; Cott 1940), some colour patches should be highly conspicuous. in press b), and saved as uncompressed TIFF files. 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). In any one block, 10 replicates of each treatment were randomly allocated, one per tree, along a nonlinear transect of ca 1.5 km by 20 m (targets were placed upon fewer than 5% of available trees), subject to the constraints that no lichen covered the trunk and no young trees of trunk circumference less than 0.9 m were used. 2000), using irradiance spectra collected at our field site using an Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometer fitted with a cosine corrector. Recent evidence supports the theory that the presence of contrasting patterns placed peripherally on an animal's body (disruptive coloration) provides survival advantages. Camouflage animals are the animals that use camouflage to disguise themselves as per their surroundings to protect them from predators, or attack prey. With the exception of countershading (Poulton 1890), almost all early discussions of camouflage were of the background-matching type (Wallace 1889; Poulton 1890; Beddard 1895) until the pioneering work of Thayer (1909) and Cott (1940). Camouflage can be attained via mechanisms such as background matching (resembling the general background) and disruptive coloration (hindering the detection of an animal’s outline).