ArticleEcology and evolution2026
High Contrast Markings Can Negate the Benefits of Transparent Camouflage.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transparency is, in theory, the ultimate form of concealment allowing for perfect background matching camouflage regardless of the environment. In nature, despite some remarkable examples of highly transparent organisms, physiological constraints mean that transparency is often partial or imperfect. This raises the question of how deviation from true transparency may affect detectability and how camouflage functions. Indeed, it has recently been suggested that partial transparency may function as disruptive camouflage as adjacent transparent and opaque patches differentially blend into the background. Differential blending may therefore offer a route by which obligate opaque structures may be concealed. The glass frogs (Centrolenidae) are a classic example of transparency with ventral skin that allows for a view of the internal organs. However, although the ventral skin is transparent and the frogs appear translucent, the internal organs are still largely opaque. Here we performed visual modelling and a field predation study with model frogs to ask how the degree of translucency and the arrangement of opaque structures affects detectability and survival. We predicted that greater translucency would improve concealment by facilitating more effective differential blending and that opaque elements which highlighted the recognisable shape of the frog would suffer increased predation risk. We found that greater translucency did improve background colour matching, but the presence of salient opaque patterns negated this camouflaging effect. However, the effect of salient patterning differed depending on model opacity, with outer markings receiving fewer attacks than central stripes for opaque but not translucent models. Here, survival was best explained by the distance at which the opaque patterning could be resolved, with thinner outer stripes receiving fewer attacks than thicker central stripes. Our data suggest that transparency may facilitate effective differential blending, but the efficacy of camouflage may be reduced by the presence of obligate opaque structures. These limitations to the efficacy of transparent camouflage may favour the evolution of translucency and explain why, despite having transparent ventral skin, glass frogs retain sparse green pigmentation in their dorsal skin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.