First published online March 16, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1139-1147 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02741
Disruptive coloration in cuttlefish: a visual perception mechanism that regulates ontogenetic adjustment of skin patterning
Alexandra Barbosa1,*,
Lydia M. Mäthger1,
Charles Chubb2,
Christopher Florio1,
Chuan-Chin Chiao1,3 and
Roger T. Hanlon1
1 Marine Resources Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods
Hole, MA 02543, USA
2 Department of Cognitive Sciences and Institute for Mathematical Behavioral
Sciences, University of California at Irvine, USA
3 Department of Life Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013,
Taiwan
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the 11 disruptive coloration skin components
that are most commonly expressed in the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis.
These chromatic skin components were used for grading the disruptive body
pattern. White posterior triangle (1), White square (2), White mantle bar (3),
White head bar (13), White arm triangle (14), Anterior transverse mantle line
(17), Posterior transverse mantle line (18), Anterior mantle bar (19), Median
mantle stripes (22), Anterior head bar (29), Paired mantle spots (21). The
numbers of the components are the same as those used in Hanlon and Messenger
(Hanlon and Messenger,
1988 ).
|
|
View larger version (102K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Montage of three cuttlefish Sepia officinalis of different ages
(i.e. different body sizes), on the same substrate, showing an ontogenetic
shift in body pattern in response to the same visual background [from fig. 84
of Hanlon and Messenger (Hanlon and
Messenger, 1988)]. Left, hatchling; middle, late juvenile; right,
early juvenile.
|
|
View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Sample images of cuttlefish, exemplifying how the 11 disruptive components
were graded to evaluate cuttlefish's responses to the different substrates
tested. See Materials and methods for further details.
|
|
View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Disruptive coloration is shown in response to checks that are 40% and 120%
of the area of the cuttlefish's White square component. Non-disruptive body
patterns (uniform and mottle) are shown on other check sizes. Sample images
are from (left to right) size classes 1, 4, and 6. Images are not to
scale.
|
|
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Average disruptive scores of seven size classes of cuttlefish tested on six
check areas (expressed as % area of the mean cuttlefish White square area).
Maximal response was evoked at 40% and 120% in animals of all sizes (values
inside gray box). Animals from size class 3 were not tested on the 12% and
400% check areas. Error bars are not shown for clarity.
|
|
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. Average disruptive score of seven classes on the 40% and 120% check areas
(expressed as % area of the mean cuttlefish White square area). There are no
significant interactions between size classes 1–5; the curves are near
parallel. Values are means ± s.e.m. For size class N, see
Table 1.
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7. Normalized data of the 11 disruptive components of the seven size classes
of cuttlefish tested on the 40% and 120% check areas (expressed as % of the
mean cuttlefish White square area). Cuttlefish size classes were grouped into
three groups: small (size classes 1 and 2), medium (size classes 3, 4 and 5)
and large (size classes 6 and 7). The relative level of disruptive components
expressions differed among groups. Error bars give 95% confidence intervals
for the plotted points. Abbreviations are given in the List of
abbreviations.
|
|
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007
