Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Feb 7;269(1488):243–256. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1855

Cryptic and conspicuous coloration in the pelagic environment.

Sönke Johnsen 1
PMCID: PMC1690886  PMID: 11839193

Abstract

Despite the importance of cryptic and conspicuous coloration in pelagic ecosystems, few researchers have investigated the optimal reflectance spectra for either trait. In this study, the underwater radiance distribution in tropical oceanic water was modelled using measured inherent optical properties and radiative transfer calculations. The modelled light field was then used to predict the reflectance spectra that resulted in minimal or maximal object contrast as a function of depth, viewing angle, azimuth and solar elevation. The results matched commonly observed trends in the coloration of many pelagic organisms and showed that optimal coloration for either crypticity or conspicuity is a complex function of the parameters examined. The effects of viewing angle and depth were substantial and non-intuitive, showing that red coloration is most cryptic at depth. The effects of viewing azimuth were less significant and the effects of solar elevation were minor. White coloration and black coloration were equally cryptic/conspicuous when viewed from below. Although conspicuous objects viewed from below had the lowest contrast when viewed from a short distance, they had the longest sighting distances. The contrast of maximally conspicuous objects viewed from short distances was greatest at wavelengths displaced from the wavelength of maximum light penetration.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (301.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowmaker J. K., Kunz Y. W. Ultraviolet receptors, tetrachromatic colour vision and retinal mosaics in the brown trout (Salmo trutta): age-dependent changes. Vision Res. 1987;27(12):2101–2108. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(87)90124-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Endler J. A. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Res. 1991;31(3):587–608. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(91)90109-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hester F. J. Visual contrast thresholds of the goldfish (Carassius auratus). Vision Res. 1968 Oct;8(10):1315–1335. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(68)90053-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Johnsen S, Widder EA. The physical basis of transparency in biological tissue: ultrastructure and the minimization of light scattering . J Theor Biol. 1999 Jul 21;199(2):181–198. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Loew E. R., Lythgoe J. N. The ecology of cone pigments in teleost fishes. Vision Res. 1978;18(6):715–722. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(78)90150-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lythgoe J. N., Partridge J. C. Visual pigments and the acquisition of visual information. J Exp Biol. 1989 Sep;146:1–20. doi: 10.1242/jeb.146.1.1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lythgoe J. N. Visual pigments and environmental light. Vision Res. 1984;24(11):1539–1550. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(84)80003-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Makino-Tasaka M., Suzuki T. The green rod pigment of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Vision Res. 1984;24(4):309–322. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(84)90056-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Marshall N. J. Communication and camouflage with the same 'bright' colours in reef fishes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Sep 29;355(1401):1243–1248. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Munz F. W., McFarland W. N. The significance of spectral position in the rhodopsins of tropical marine fishes. Vision Res. 1973 Oct;13(10):1829–1874. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(73)90060-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M., Wang J., Gao X. Meteoritic oxide grain from supernova found. Nature. 1998 May 21;393(6682):222–222. doi: 10.1038/30377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Novales-Flamarique H, Hawryshyn C. ULTRAVIOLET PHOTORECEPTION CONTRIBUTES TO PREY SEARCH BEHAVIOUR IN TWO SPECIES OF ZOOPLANKTIVOROUS FISHES. J Exp Biol. 1994 Jan;186(1):187–198. doi: 10.1242/jeb.186.1.187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Powers M., Easter S. S., Jr Absolute visual sensitivity of the goldfish. Vision Res. 1978;18(9):1137–1147. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(78)90097-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Purcell J. E. Influence of Siphonophore Behavior upon Their Natural Diets: Evidence for Aggressive Mimicry. Science. 1980 Aug 29;209(4460):1045–1047. doi: 10.1126/science.209.4460.1045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES