Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • For library administrators
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • For library administrators
Research Article
Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio
Afsheen Siddiqi, Thomas W. Cronin, Ellis R. Loew, Misha Vorobyev, Kyle Summers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2004 207: 2471-2485; doi: 10.1242/jeb.01047
Afsheen Siddiqi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas W. Cronin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ellis R. Loew
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Misha Vorobyev
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kyle Summers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Images of 14 of the 15 color morphs of Dendrobates pumilio included in the current study, all from the Bocas del Toro region of Panama. The name designating each type indicates the location at which the particular color morph is collected. The one color morph not illustrated is from Pelican Key, and it is very similar in appearance to the `Shepherd Island' type. Photographs by K. Summers, except for Bocas Island and Solarte Island images, which were taken by Marcos Guerra.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Representative reflectance spectra from leaves used as backgrounds for spectral comparisons. (A) Purple leaf from Zebrina pendula. (B) Red leaf from Neoreglia carolinae. (C) Yellow dry leaf. (D) Green leaf of Aglaonema commutatum.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Spectra used in data analyses of spectral discriminability. See text for a description of the model used for this analysis. (A) Irradiance spectra. D65 (standard daylight), D55 (direct sunlight) and D75 (`north' skylight), from Wyszecki and Stiles (1982). Green (light under the natural forest canopy in D. pumilio habitat, Pelican Key), from Summers et al. (2003). (B) Templates representing cone visual pigments of D. pumilio. (C) Spectral sensitivities of avian cones, taken from Parus caeruleus (generously provided by N. Hart). Thin lines indicate visual pigments, while thick lines represent spectral sensitivities computed taking cone oil droplet absorption into account, used for actual analyses. (D) Normalized absorptance of an avian double cone, including the contribution of the associated oil droplet, used in achromatic analyses (provided by N. Hart). UVS, ultraviolet sensitive; SWS, short-wavelength sensitive; MWS, medium-wavelength sensitive; LWS, long-wavelength sensitive.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Results from microspectophotometric analyses of photoreceptors of D. pumilio, together with best-fit rhodopsin templates (smooth lines; from Lipetz and Cronin, 1988). (A) Rod photoreceptors (λmax=491 nm; N=16). (B) SWS cone photoreceptors (λmax=466 nm; N=5). (C) MWS cone photoreceptors (λmax=488 nm; N=14). (D) LWS cone photoreceptors (λmax=560 nm; N=20). (E) Single oil droplet from a single LWS cone inner segment, showing no significant absorption throughout the visual spectrum.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Results of analyses comparing frog spectral reflectances as discriminated by frog or bird visual systems. Each panel is a histogram plot of the number of comparisons (each a pair of spectra) vs. jnds (`just-noticeable-differences'); see text for details. Data plotted here represent results for the `Green' illuminant, but overall results were similar for all illuminants; see also Table 1. (A) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by frog vision. (B) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by frog vision. (C) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by bird vision. (D) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by bird vision.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Results of analyses comparing frog spectral reflectances within single color morphs, as viewed by frog or bird visual systems. Each panel plots the discriminability (in jnds; just-noticeable-differences) of spectral pairs, each indicated by a dot, for color morphs indicated along the abscissa. Al, Almirante; Ag, Aguacate; Ba, Bastimentos; Bo, Bocas; Ca, Cayo Agua; Cg, Chiriqui Grande; Gu, Guabo; Po, Pope; Ra, Rambala; Rb, Robalo; Rd, Roldan (Pelican Key); Sc, San Cristobal; Sh, Shepherd; So, Solarte; Uy, Uyama. Results plotted here are for the `Green' illuminant, but similar results were found for all illuminants. See also Table 2. (A) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by frog vision. (B) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by frog vision. (C) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by bird vision. (D) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by bird vision. Note that there are many more points in the panels for frogs vs. backgrounds, because each frog color was compared to all background colors, not only to the few colors present in any given frog color morph as in A and C.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    Results of analyses comparing frog spectral reflectances as discriminated by frog or bird visual systems, using only `bright' frog colors in the analysis. Each panel is a histogram plot of the number of comparisons (each a pair of spectra) vs. jnds (`just-noticeable-differences'); see text for details. Data plotted here represent results for the `Green' illuminant, but overall results were similar for all illuminants; see also Table 3. (A) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by frog vision. (B) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by frog vision. (C) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by bird vision. (D) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by bird vision.

  • Fig. 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8.

    Results of analyses comparing spectral reflectances from dorsal or ventral frog body regions, as discriminated from backgrounds by frog or bird visual systems. All discriminations plotted here are for the `Green' illuminant, but results were similar for all illuminants. Open bars, dorsal frog colors; solid bars, ventral frog colors. (A) Frog visual systems, (B) bird visual systems.

  • Fig. 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 9.

    Results of analyses comparing frog spectral reflectances as discriminated by only the achromatic channel of frog or bird visual systems. Data plotted here represent results for the `Green' illuminant, but overall results were similar for all illuminants; see also Table 4. (A) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by frog vision. (B) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by frog vision. (C) Frog spectral pairs, as seen by bird vision. (D) Frog spectra compared to background spectra, as seen by bird vision.

  • Table 1.

    Percentage of spectra with low chromatic discriminability in frog and bird visual systems

    Visual system
    Frog (f×f) Bird (f×f) Frog (f×b) Bird (f×b)
    Irradiance0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds
    D655.0026.550.8318.415.1129.930.4315.03
    D555.0925.810.6518.784.9619.790.4315.04
    D755.1827.290.8317.955.3930.640.4314.47
    Green5.3727.100.9316.374.2630.070.7114.61
    • jnds, just-noticeable differences.

      Values are percent of total spectra compared. (f×f), frog colors compared; (f×b), frog colors compared to backgrounds. Lower percentages show higher discrimination ability of the viewer.

  • Table 2.

    Frog morphotype with low and high contrasting colors within a frog and against a background for bird and frog visual systems

    Visual system
    Frog (f×f) Bird (f×f) Frog (f×b) Bird (f×b)
    IrradianceLCHCLCHCLCHCLCHC
    D65UyamaAlmiranteUyamaAlmiranteShepardSolarteUyamaAlmirante
    D55 vs. vs. vs. vs.
    D75YellowZebrinaMossSticks
    GreenSanBromiliadplantSolarte
    Cristoballeafvs. Moss
    • LC, low contrast colors; HC, high contrast colors.

      (f×f), frog colors compared; (f×b), frog colors compared to backgrounds.

      Morphotype in each column represents the lowest or highest contrasted colors to the visual system viewing the frog.

  • Table 3.

    Percentage of spectra with low chromatic discriminability of `bright' frog colors in frog and bird visual systems

    Visual system
    Frog (f×f) Bird (f×f) Frog (f×b) Bird (f×b)
    Irradiance0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds
    D653.9917.390.3613.043.6018.0608.06
    D553.9916.670.3613.413.3317.5008.06
    D753.9918.480.3613.044.1719.1707.22
    Green3.6216.670.7213.043.0619.720.567.78
    • Values are percentage of total spectra compared. (f×f), frog colors compared; (f×b), frog colors compared to backgrounds. Lower percentages show higher discrimination ability of the viewer.

  • Table 4.

    Percentage of spectra with low achromatic discriminability in frog and bird visual systems

    Visual system
    Frog (f×f) Bird (f×f) Frog (f×b) Bird (f×b)
    Irradiance0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds0 jnds0-3 jnds
    D653.2413.513.5213.882.1311.913.2615.32
    D553.6114.152.9613.232.8413.193.414.61
    D753.8913.233.3313.62.711.212.9814.89
    Green3.8914.063.4213.882.1310.502.5514.33
    • Values are percentage of total spectra compared. (f×f), frog colors compared; (f×b), frog colors compared to backgrounds. Lower percentages show higher discrimination ability of the viewer.

  • Table 5.

    Frog morphotypes with the greatest and least color contrasts to a given morphotype

    MorphotypeAlmiranteAguacateBastimentosBocasCayo AguaChiriqui GrandeGila RambalaGuaboPope IsRobaloRoldanSan CristobalShepherdSolarteUyama
    Minimum contrastBastimentosSan CristobalUyamaPope Is.AguacateGuaboUyamaChiriqui GrandeBocasUyamaGila RambalaBastimentosRoldanUyamaBastimentos
    (1.21)(0.60)(0.09)(0.49)(0.60)(0.14)(0.11)(0.14)(0.49)(0.11)(0.21)(0.32)(0.57)(0.57)(0.09)
    Maximum contrastSolarteSolarteSolarteSan CristobalSolarteSolarteSolarteSolarteSan CristobalSolarteSolarteSolarteSolarteSan CristobalSolarte
    (29.02)(30.48)(27.85)(26.77)(30.88)(26.86)(27.71)(26.76)(22.03)(27.37)(26.02)(30.88)(23.60)(30.88)(27.60)
    • In each column the type having a color with the least difference from one color in the morphotype given at the top, and the type with a color having the greatest difference from a color in the given type.

      Also given is the perceptual distance between the color pairs in jnds.

Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Article
Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio
Afsheen Siddiqi, Thomas W. Cronin, Ellis R. Loew, Misha Vorobyev, Kyle Summers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2004 207: 2471-2485; doi: 10.1242/jeb.01047
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio
Afsheen Siddiqi, Thomas W. Cronin, Ellis R. Loew, Misha Vorobyev, Kyle Summers
Journal of Experimental Biology 2004 207: 2471-2485; doi: 10.1242/jeb.01047

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • SUMMARY
    • Introduction
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Na+/H+-exchangers differentially contribute to midgut fluid sodium and proton concentration in the sea urchin larva
  • Testing the influence of crushing surface variation on seed-cracking performance among beak morphs of the African seedcracker Pyrenestes ostrinus
  • Diversity in rest-activity patterns among Lake Malawi cichlid fishes suggests a novel axis of habitat partitioning
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Predicting the Future: Species Survival in a Changing World

Read our new special issue exploring the significant role of experimental biology in assessing and predicting the susceptibility or resilience of species to future, human-induced environmental change.


Adam Hardy wins the 2020 Journal of Experimental Biology Outstanding Paper Prize

Congratulations to winner Adam Hardy for his work showing that goby fins are as touch sensitive as primate fingertips. Read Adam’s paper and find out more about the 12 papers nominated for the award.


Stark trade-offs and elegant solutions in arthropod visual systems

Many elegant eye specializations that evolved in response to visual challenges continue to be discovered. A new Review by Meece et al. summarises exciting solutions evolved by insects and other arthropods in response to specific visual challenges.


Head bobbing gives pigeons a sense of perspective

Pigeons might look goofy with their head-bobbing walk, but it turns out that the ungainly head manoeuvre allows the birds to judge distance.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992