Dazzling stripes are a way of deterring flies. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the zebra got its stripes

A method for dodging predators? A means of social interaction? Or a way of getting rid of flies?

Zebras' stripes have baffled biologists since Charles Darwin. Many hypotheses have been proposed regarding their purpose but, despite hundreds of years of study, there remains disagreement.

In an attempt to end the debate, researchers have pitted various models against each other and systematically analysed data from past studies. Their results reveal the one reason zebras have stripes: to ward off flies.

A handful of ideas regarding zebras’ stripes have found some support among biologists. One proposed that the dark and light bands change how air flows around a zebra’s body and helps in heat management, which could go a long way in the hot tropical areas that zebras live in.

Another proposed the stripes were used by zebras as a way of social interaction. They may use them to identify other zebras and for bonding as a group in the wild.

A third proposal suggested zebras used the stripes as camouflage. While stripes are clearly visible in the day, there some thought that it helped at dawn, dusk, and in the night.

All these ideas were shot down when tested rigorously. Two others, however, remained intriguing.

The first was that the stripes were used to dodge predators. It is called the “motion dazzle hypothesis”, and it suggests predators are confused by zebras' stripes and cannot understand their movement. Research published in the journal Zoology in 2013 used a simulated visual system to show that zebra stripes do interfere with visual perception. But this is a difficult hypothesis to test in the field.

Martin Stevens at the University of Exeter has researched the motion dazzle hypothesis by getting human subjects to catch moving stripy objects on a computer. “It’s an artificial experimental system,” he admitted.

The second proposal was that stripes helped keep flies at bay. Zebras are especially susceptible to biting flies due to their geographic spread. These flies, which include the tsetse fly, stomoxys stable flies, and tabanid biting flies, are particularly prevalent in areas with high temperature and humidity – exactly the areas where zebras are normally found.

Bites from these flies can be nasty and, quite literally, draining. About thirty flies feeding for six hours on just one horse can draw as much as 100mL of blood. Usually the flies can number in the hundreds around one animal.

Zebras have shorter hair than other equids – the family that includes horses, donkeys and zebras – which may also increase their susceptibility to attack. Also, four diseases which are fatal to equids have been found in Africa. This could mean that investing in anti-biting defenses such as stripes is especially important for zebras compared to non-African equids.

It is possible that the dazzle effect acts on flies, rather than larger predators, and deter them from biting. “Stripes clearly have a number of functions,” Stevens said, “and these could be interacting in zebras.”

Revealing maps

In the new research, just published in Nature Communications, Tim Caro and his colleagues at the University of California in Davis, didn’t perform experiments. Instead they used ecological and observational data on zebras' geographical locations and related factors. It is the first time that a comparative approach has been applied to find the reasons for zebras' characteristic colouration. Caro thinks his findings may have nailed the answer at last.

Caro looked at seven species of equids and scored them for number and intensity of stripes. Just to be sure, they tested all five hypotheses regarding zebra stripes' use: camouflage, predator avoidance, heat management, social interaction, and warding off flies. The extent of overlap between the geographic distribution of striped equids with each of these five measures was calculated.


E. greyvi, E. burchelli and E. zebra have stripes on all their bodies. Other equids don’t. Caro, Izzo, Reiner, Walker and Stankowich

“The results were a shock to me,” said Caro. Of these five proposals, only warding off flies had statistical support. He had not expected such a clear-cut answer to the question. As the map shows, the only places where flies and equids live together are areas that are populated by striped equids.

The exact mechanism by which stripes deter flies remains unknown, but experimental studies performed by researchers at Lund University in 2012 have found support for this proposal. They created striped surfaces and stuck glue on them. Based on the number of flies on the surfaces with different thicknesses of stripes, they concluded that these flies stayed away from stripes as thin as those found on zebras.

“As is normal in science you get a solution that asks more questions,” Caro said. It is time to hand the problem over to vector biologists, who can understand the susceptibility of horses to biting flies.

In Darwin’s days, people didn’t consider animal colouration with respect to fitness advantages. “People thought that animal colouration existed simply to please humans or was caused directly by the environment,” Caro said.

Darwin “would be delighted” that researchers are now considering animal colouration as a functional trait, he said. We might not have all the answers regarding zebra stripes – but it seems we may be looking through the right lens.

The ConversationThis article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Forget fake news on Facebook – the real filter bubble is you

If people want to receive all their news from a single feed that reinforces their beliefs, there is little that can be done.

It’s Google that vaunts the absurdly optimistic motto “Don’t be evil”, but there are others of Silicon Valley’s techno-nabobs who have equally high-flown moral agendas. Step forward, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who responded this week to the brouhaha surrounding his social media platform’s influence on the US presidential election thus: “We are all blessed to have the ability to make the world better, and we have the responsibility to do it. Let’s go work even harder.”

To which the only possible response – if you’re me – is: “No we aren’t, no we don’t, and I’m going back to my flowery bed to cultivate my garden of inanition.” I mean, where does this guy get off? It’s estimated that a single message from Facebook caused about 340,000 extra voters to pitch up at the polls for the 2010 US congressional elections – while the tech giant actually performed an “experiment”: showing either positive or negative news stories to hundreds of thousands of their members, and so rendering them happier or sadder.

In the past, Facebook employees curating the site’s “trending news” section were apparently told to squash stories that right-wingers might “like”, but in the run-up to the US election the brakes came off and all sorts of fraudulent clickbait was fed to the denizens of the virtual underworld, much – but not all of it – generated by spurious alt-right “news sites”.

Why? Because Facebook doesn’t view itself as a conventional news provider and has no rubric for fact-checking its news content: it can take up to 13 hours for stories about Hillary Clinton eating babies barbecued for her by Barack Obama to be taken down – and in that time Christ knows how many people will have not only given them credence, but also liked or shared them, so passing on the contagion. The result has been something digital analysts describe as a “filter bubble”, a sort of virtual helmet that drops down over your head and ensures that you receive only the sort of news you’re already fit to be imprinted with. Back in the days when everyone read the print edition of the New York Times this sort of manipulation was, it is argued, quite impossible; after all, the US media historically made a fetish of fact-checking, an editorial process that is pretty much unknown in our own press. Why, I’ve published short stories in American magazines and newspapers and had fact-checkers call me up to confirm the veracity of my flights of fancy. No, really.

In psychology, the process by which any given individual colludes in the creation of a personalised “filter bubble” is known as confirmation bias: we’re more inclined to believe the sort of things that validate what we want to believe – and by extension, surely, these are likely to be the sorts of beliefs we want to share with others. It seems to me that the big social media sites, while perhaps blowing up more and bigger filter bubbles, can scarcely be blamed for the confirmation bias. Nor – as yet – have they wreaked the sort of destruction on the world that has burst from the filter bubble known as “Western civilisation” – one that was blown into being by the New York Times, the BBC and all sorts of highly respected media outlets over many decades.

Societies that are both dominant and in the ascendant always imagine their belief systems and the values they enshrine are the best ones. You have only to switch on the radio and hear our politicians blithering on about how they’re going to get both bloodthirsty sides in the Syrian Civil War to behave like pacifist vegetarians in order to see the confirmation bias hard at work.

The Western belief – which has its roots in imperialism, but has bodied forth in the form of liberal humanism – that all is for the best in the world best described by the New York Times’s fact-checkers, is also a sort of filter bubble, haloing almost all of us in its shiny and translucent truth.

Religion? Obviously a good-news feed that many billions of the credulous rely on entirely. Science? Possibly the biggest filter bubble there is in the universe, and one that – if you believe Stephen Hawking – has been inflating since shortly before the Big Bang. After all, any scientific theory is just that: a series of observable (and potentially repeatable) regularities, a bubble of consistency we wander around in, perfectly at ease despite its obvious vulnerability to those little pricks, the unforeseen and the contingent. Let’s face it, what lies behind most people’s beliefs is not facts, but prejudices, and all this carping about algorithms is really the howling of a liberal elite whose own filter bubble has indeed been popped.

A television producer I know once joked that she was considering pitching a reality show to the networks to be called Daily Mail Hate Island. The conceit was that a group of ordinary Britons would be marooned on a desert island where the only news they’d have of the outside world would come in the form of the Daily Mail; viewers would find themselves riveted by watching these benighted folk descend into the barbarism of bigotry as they absorbed ever more factitious twaddle. But as I pointed out to this media innovator, we’re already marooned on Daily Mail Hate Island: it’s called Britain.

If people want to receive all their news from a single feed that constantly and consistently reinforces their beliefs, what are you going to do about it? The current argument is that Facebook’s algorithms reinforce political polarisation, but does anyone really believe better editing on the site will return our troubled present to some prelap­sarian past, let alone carry us forward into a brave new factual future? No, we’re all condemned to collude in the inflation of our own filter bubbles unless we actively seek to challenge every piece of received information, theory, or opinion. And what an exhausting business that would be . . . without the internet.

Will Self is an author and journalist. His books include Umbrella, Shark, The Book of Dave and The Butt. He writes the Madness of Crowds and Real Meals columns for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 24 November 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Blair: out of exile