Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31017903›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

How conspicuous are peacock eyespots and other colorful feathers in the eyes of mammalian predators?

Suzanne Amador Kane, Yuchao Wang, Rui Fang, Yabin Lu, Roslyn Dakin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne Amador KanePhysics & Astronomy Department, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7532-7532
Yuchao WangPhysics & Astronomy Department, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Rui FangPhysics & Astronomy Department, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Yabin LuPhysics & Astronomy Department, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Roslyn DakinMigratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington DC, United States of America.
Haverford College · USSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorful feathers have long been assumed to be conspicuous to predators, and hence likely to incur costs due to enhanced predation risk. However, many mammals that prey on birds have dichromatic visual systems with only two types of color-sensitive visual receptors, rather than the three and four photoreceptors characteristic of humans and most birds, respectively. Here, we use a combination of multispectral imaging, reflectance spectroscopy, color vision modelling and visual texture analysis to compare the visual signals available to conspecifics and to mammalian predators from multicolored feathers from the Indian peacock (Pavo cristatus), as well as red and yellow parrot feathers. We also model the effects of distance-dependent blurring due to visual acuity. When viewed by birds against green vegetation, most of the feathers studied are estimated to have color and brightness contrasts similar to values previously found for ripe fruit. On the other hand, for dichromat mammalian predators, visual contrasts for these feathers were only weakly detectable and often below detection thresholds for typical viewing distances. We also show that for dichromat mammal vision models, the peacock's train has below-detection threshold color and brightness contrasts and visual textures that match various foliage backgrounds. These findings are consistent with many feathers of similar hue to those studied here being inconspicuous, and in some cases potentially cryptic, in the eyes of common mammalian predators of adult birds. Given that birds perform many conspicuous motions and behaviors, this study suggests that mammalian predators are more likely to use other sensory modalities (e.g., motion detection, hearing, and olfaction), rather than color vision, to detect avian prey. This suggests new directions for future behavioral studies and emphasizes the importance of understanding the influence of the sensory ecology of predators in the evolution of animal coloration.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological EvolutionBiological MimicryBirdsColorColor VisionCuesFeathersFemaleFerretsMaleModels, BiologicalPhotoreceptor Cells, VertebratePigmentationPredatory BehaviorSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID31017903
PMCPMC6481771
OpenAlexW2950368526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.