Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36100020›Full record

SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Predator responses to prey camouflage strategies: a meta-analysis.

João Vitor de Alcantara Viana, Camila Vieira, Rafael Campos Duarte, Gustavo Quevedo Romero

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. All camouflage strategies are not equal.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

João Vitor de Alcantara VianaPrograma de Pós-graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Instituto de Biologia, Laboratório de Interações Multitróficas e Biodiversidade, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5249-5362
Camila VieiraDepartamento de Ciências Básicas, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), campus de Pirassununga, CEP 13635-900 Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7433-8360
Rafael Campos DuarteUniversidade Federal do ABC, CEP 09606-045 São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7059-3129
Gustavo Quevedo RomeroLaboratório de Interações Multitróficas e Biodiversidade, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), CP 6109, CEP 13083-970 Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3736-4759
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although numerous studies about camouflage have been conducted in the last few decades, there is still a significant gap in our knowledge about the magnitude of protective value of different camouflage strategies in prey detection and survival. Furthermore, the functional significance of several camouflage strategies remains controversial. Here we carried out a comprehensive meta-analysis including comparisons of different camouflage strategies as well as predator and prey types, considering two response variables: mean predator search time (ST) (63 studies) and predator attack rate (AR) of camouflaged prey (28 studies). Overall, camouflage increased the predator ST by 62.56% and decreased the AR of prey by 27.34%. Masquerade was the camouflage strategy that most increased predator ST (295.43%). Background matching and disruptive coloration did not differ from each other. Motion camouflage did not increase ST but decreases AR on prey. We found no evidence that eyespot increases ST and decreases AR by predators. The different types of predators did not differ from each other, but caterpillars were the type of prey that most influenced the magnitude of camouflage's effect. We highlight the potential evolutionary mechanisms that led camouflage to be a highly effective anti-predatory adaptation, as well as potential discrepancies or redundancies among strategies, predator and prey types.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPredatory BehaviorAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsMotionantipredator behaviourbackground-matchingconcealmentdisruptive colorationmasquerade

Identifiers

PMID36100020
PMCPMC9470275
OpenAlexW4295761757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.