Gray plumage color is more cryptic than brown in snowy landscapes in a resident color polymorphic bird

Camouflage may promote fitness of given phenotypes in different environments. The tawny owl (Strix aluco) is a color polymorphic species with a gray and brown morph resident in the Western Palearctic. A strong selection pressure against the brown morph during snowy and cold winters has been documented earlier, but the selection mechanisms remain unresolved. Here, we hypothesize that selection favors the gray morph because it is better camouflaged against predators and mobbers in snowy conditions compared to the brown one. We conducted an online citizen science experiment where volunteers were asked to locate a gray or a brown tawny owl specimen from pictures taken in snowy and snowless landscapes. Our results show that the gray morph in snowy landscapes is the hardest to detect whereas the brown morph in snowy landscapes is the easiest to detect. With an avian vision model, we show that, similar to human perceivers, the brown morph is more conspicuous than the gray against coniferous tree trunks for a mobbing passerine. We suggest that with better camouflage, the gray morph may avoid mobbers and predators more efficiently than the brown morph and thus survive better in snowy environments. As winters are getting milder and shorter in the species range, the selection periods against brown coloration may eventually disappear or shift poleward.Peer reviewe

Low-productivity boreal forests have high conservation value for lichens

1. Land set aside for preservation of biodiversity often has low productivity. As biodiversity generally increases with productivity, due to higher or more diverse availability of resources, this implies that some of the biodiversity may be left unprotected. Due to a lack of knowledge on the species diversity and conservation value of low-productivity habitats, the consequences of the biased allocation of low-productivity land for set-asides are unknown. 2. We examined the conservation value of boreal low-productivity forests (potential tree growth <1 m(3) ha(-1) year(-1)) by comparing assemblages of tree- and deadwood-dwelling lichens and forest stand structure between productive and low-productivity forest stands. We surveyed 84 Scots pine-dominated stands in three regions in Sweden, each including four stand types: two productive (managed and unman-aged) and two low-productivity stands (on mires and on thin, rocky soils). 3. Lichen species richness was the highest in low-productivity stands on thin soil, which had similar amounts and diversity of resources (living trees and dead wood) to productive unmanaged stands. Stands in low-productivity mires, which had low abundance of living trees and dead wood, hosted the lowest lichen richness. Lichen species composition differed among stand types, but none of them hosted unique species. The differences in both species richness and composition were more pronounced in northern than in southern Sweden, likely due to shorter history of intensive forestry. 4. Synthesis and applications. Boreal low-productivity forests can have as high conservation value as productive forests, which should be reflected in conservation strategies. However, their value is far from uniform, and conservation planning should acknowledge this variation and not treat all low-productivity forests as a uniform group. Some types of low-productivity forest (e.g. on rocky soil) are more valuable than others (e.g. on mires), and should thus be prioritized in conservation. It is also important to consider the landscape context: low-productivity forests may have higher value in landscapes where high-productivity forests are highly influenced by forestry. Finally, although low-productivity forests can be valuable for some taxa, productive forests may still be important for other taxa