Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Imperfect transparency and camouflage in glass frogs

Barnett, James B., Michalis, Constantine, Anderson, Hannah M., McEwen, Brendan L., Yeager, Justin, Pruitt, Jonathan N., Scott-Samuel, Nicholas E., Cuthill, Innes C.·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Camouflage patterns prevent detection and/or recognition by matching the background, disrupting edges, or mimicking particular background features. In variable habitats, however, a single pattern cannot match all available sites all of the time, and efficacy may therefore be reduced. Active color change provides an alternative where coloration can be altered to match local conditions, but again efficacy may be limited by the speed of change and range of patterns available. Transparency, on the other hand, creates high-fidelity camouflage that changes instantaneously to match any substrate but is potentially compromised in terrestrial environments where image distortion may be more obvious than in water. Glass frogs are one example of terrestrial transparency and are well known for their transparent ventral skin through which their bones, intestines, and beating hearts can be seen. However, sparse dorsal pigmentation means that these frogs are better described as translucent. To investigate whether this imperfect transparency acts as camouflage, we used in situ behavioral trials, visual modeling, and laboratory psychophysics. We found that the perceived luminance of the frogs changed depending on the immediate background, lowering detectability and increasing survival when compared to opaque frogs. Moreover, this change was greatest for the legs, which surround the body at rest and create a diffuse transition from background to frog luminance rather than a sharp, highly salient edge. This passive change in luminance, without significant modification of hue, suggests a camouflage strategy, “edge diffusion,” distinct from both transparency and active color change.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1919417117

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. C. Michalis “Background matching camouflage.” PhD thesis University of Bristol Bristol UK (2017).

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Barnett, J. B., Michalis, C., Anderson, H. M., McEwen, B. L., Yeager, J., Pruitt, J. N., Scott-Samuel, N. E., & Cuthill, I. C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada;
  • School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 1TQ Bristol, United Kingdom;
  • Biodiversidad Medio Ambiente y Salud, Universidad de Las Américas, 170125 Quito, Ecuador;
  • School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, BS8 1TU Bristol, United Kingdom
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
117
Issue
23
Pages
12885-12890
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
37
References
44
Language
en
Funders
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (ANR-10-LABX-25-01)
  • RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/S00873X/1)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.