Evolutionary constraints on flicker fusion frequency in Lepidoptera

Antipredator defences in motion: animals reduce predation risks by concealing or misleading motion signals

Motion is a crucial part of the natural world, yet our understanding of how animals avoid predation whilst moving remains rather limited. Although several theories have been proposed for how antipredator defence may be facilitated during motion, there is often a lack of supporting empirical evidence, or conflicting findings. Furthermore, many studies have shown that motion often 'breaks' camouflage, as sudden movement can be detected even before an individual is recognised. Whilst some static camouflage strategies may conceal moving animals to a certain extent, more emphasis should be given to other modes of camouflage and related defences in the context of motion (e.g. flicker fusion camouflage, active motion camouflage, motion dazzle, and protean motion). Furthermore, when motion is involved, defence strategies are not necessarily limited to concealment. An animal can also rely on motion to mislead predators with regards to its trajectory, location, size, colour pattern, or even identity. In this review, we discuss the various underlying antipredator strategies and the mechanisms through which they may be linked to motion, conceptualising existing empirical and theoretical studies from two perspectives - concealing and misleading effects. We also highlight gaps in our understanding of these antipredator strategies, and suggest possible methodologies for experimental designs/test subjects (i.e. prey and/or predators) and future research directions.

A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies

BACKGROUND

Light pollution could represent one of the main drivers behind the current biodiversity erosion. While the effects of many light components on biodiversity have already been studied, the influence of flicker remains poorly understood. The determination of the threshold frequency at which a flickering light is perceived as continuous by a species, usually called the Critical Fusion Frequency (CFF), could thus help further identify the impacts of artificial lighting on animals.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed at answering the following questions: what is the distribution of CFF between species? Are there differences in how flicker is perceived between taxonomic classes? Which species are more at risk of being impacted by artificial lighting flicker?

METHODS

Citations were extracted from three literature databases and were then screened successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Included studies were critically appraised to assess their validity. All relevant data were extracted and analysed to determine the distribution of CFF in the animal kingdom and the influence of experimental designs and species traits on CFF.

RESULTS

At first, 4881 citations were found. Screening and critical appraisal provided 200 CFF values for 156 species. Reported values of CFF varied from a maximum of between 300 Hz and 500 Hz for the beetle Melanophila acuminata D. to a mean of 0.57 (± 0.08) Hz for the snail Lissachatina fulica B. Insects and birds had higher CFF than all other studied taxa. Irrespective of taxon, nocturnal species had lower CFF than diurnal and crepuscular ones.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified nine crepuscular and nocturnal species that could be impacted by the potential adverse effects of anthropogenic light flicker. We emphasize that there remains a huge gap in our knowledge of flicker perception by animals, which could potentially be hampering our understanding of its impacts on biodiversity, especially in key taxa like bats, nocturnal birds and insects.

Generating spatiotemporal patterns of linearly polarised light at high frame rates for insect vision research

Polarisation vision is commonplace among invertebrates; however, most experiments focus on determining behavioural and/or neurophysiological responses to static polarised light sources rather than moving patterns of polarised light. To address the latter, we designed a polarisation stimulation device based on superimposing polarised and non-polarised images from two projectors, which can display moving patterns at frame rates exceeding invertebrate flicker fusion frequencies. A linear polariser fitted to one projector enables moving patterns of polarised light to be displayed, whilst the other projector contributes arbitrary intensities of non-polarised light to yield moving patterns with a defined polarisation and intensity contrast. To test the device, we measured receptive fields of polarisation-sensitive Argynnis paphia butterfly photoreceptors for both non-polarised and polarised light. We then measured local motion sensitivities of the optic flow-sensitive lobula plate tangential cell H1 in Calliphora vicina blowflies under both polarised and non-polarised light, finding no polarisation sensitivity in this neuron.

Summary: Design of a versatile visual stimulation device for presenting moving patterns of polarised light, and demonstration of its use to characterise polarisation sensitivity in butterfly photoreceptors and blowfly motion-sensitive interneurons.

Nocturnal Myrmecia ants have faster temporal resolution at low light levels but lower adaptability compared to diurnal relatives

Nocturnal insects likely have evolved distinct physiological adaptations to enhance sensitivity for tasks, such as catching moving prey, where the signal-noise ratio of visual information is typically low. Using electroretinogram recordings, we measured the impulse response and the flicker fusion frequency (FFF) in six congeneric species of Myrmecia ants with different diurnal rhythms. The FFF, which measures the ability of an eye to respond to a flickering light, is significantly lower in nocturnal ants (∼125 Hz) compared to diurnal ants (∼189 Hz). However, the nocturnal ants have faster eyes at very low light intensities than the diurnal species. During the day, nocturnal ants had slower impulse responses than their diurnal counterparts. However, at night, both latency and duration significantly shortened in nocturnal species. The characteristics of the impulse responses varied substantially across all six species and did not correlate well with the measured flicker fusion frequency.

•

Flicker fusion frequency is lower in nocturnal ants compared to diurnal ants

•

Latency and duration of the impulse response shorten at night in nocturnal ants

•

In ants, the FFF is not predicted by the measured impulse response characteristics