How Bass See Color

[aavery2]

You can take all those factors into account if you like taking good data.  Then, you can calculate probabilities of bites based on the interaction of factors.  Pretty typical data analysis stuff.

I think you would factor yourself into oblivion trying to calculate the probability that a bass would bite.   

[aavery2]

Does red fishing line attract Bass?

It does sometimes when it has a crankbait tied to it.   

[Paul Roberts]

"Seeing Red" ...a poem...Ahem...

 

Red is an apple ripe on the vine.

Red is of Kool-Aide, grapes, and wine.

Red is of tumescence, lipstick, lingerie, and high, high heels.

Red's pretty important to people.

Tackle manufacturer's see Green when they offer Red!

Makes me see Red.

[F14A-B]

hehe, must the crankbait also be red? It's my understanding these items must match...

[Weld's Largemouth]

This is a very interesting and useful journal read: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v59/p34_40.pdf

[aavery2]

hehe, must the crankbait also be red? It's my understanding these items must match...

May I refer you to the thread about if the jig and trailer need to match.   I think we determined that it was only a factor when it was.

[F14A-B]

Yes, lol ... Someone said something about their socks not matching, musta been JF..that was a interesting thread as well..

[aavery2]

This is a very interesting and useful journal read: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v59/p34_40.pdf

Interesting, to me I find it cool that they were wrestling with the same thoughts and questions in 1979, 35 years ago.  

[Catt]

This is a portion of a article in a very good book on what bass see.

Numerous experiments have been done on bass concerning their vision and ability to identify different colors and thicknesses of fishing line. In one research project, bass were trained to strike targets connected to different colored fishing line. There were a series of targets connected to different colored fishing line, bass were trained to strike certain colored fishing line in order to receive a reward of food. Once the bass learned which colored fishing line resulted in a reward, the experiment was repeated with fishing line of smaller diameter.

Bass were able to quickly select the fishing line of the desired color down to four pound test line. This experiment was repeated with different colored fishing line. Bass were also able to discriminate between different colors of the fishing line with a high degree of accuracy. This experiment proved several things. Bass have highly developed color vision and were able to determine the difference between clear, purple, green, blue, yellow and pink fishing lines.

In what body of water was this research done?

[papajoe222]

Although it is debateable whether or not bass see colors as we do, I think we can agree that they do see colors and can tell the difference between many of them at depths of 30ft. or more and at night under a moonless sky. Many can testify to this and the fact that they, at times, do show a preference for a certain color. The difficulty we face as fishermen is knowing when their color preference outweighs, or becomes more important to them, than shape, size, action, scent, etc.

There are way too many variables in a bass' enviornment that affect both their behavior and how they may or may not percieve colors. I doubt that science will come up with any definitive answers in my lifetime, so I stick to my way of finding out the answer as I'm sure most of you do. Trial and error is the best way I can describe how I answer the 'right color' question. If I'm confident there are fish in the area and that they are likely to prefer a certain style bait presented in a certain way, but I'm not getting any action on it, I'll switch colors. If I begin catching those fish, in my mind I believe they have a color preference.  If I switch to a different style and color of  lure and begin catching, I don't sit and wonder if it was the color change or the change of lure type.  I just keep on chucking that puppy until it stops producing.

[aavery2]

In what body of water was this research done?

Unknown, I would assume it was done in a controlled environment to eliminate as many variables as possible.

[Ozark_Basser]

This is a very interesting and useful journal read: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v59/p34_40.pdf

Good read.  However, it seems like the experiment would have been better if they would have presented the fish with all of the colors instead of just two.  Then once the fish reached criterion with the braided strand, they should have randomly mixed all of the lines leaving the same line as the reward line for the single strand.  THEN they should have seen how well the fish could discern between the lines.  This would leave the fish to only use color discernment to find the reward line instead of going back to the same spot to pull on the line or merely guessing between the two. Although not perfect, I think this would add more control to the experiment and eliminate some of the randomness. 

 

 It's weird how the fluorescent white line seemed to be the worst to reach criterion, but the clear line was one of the best Look out Berkley Nanofil! Haha who knows though. I don't think the bass would blatantly shy away from it because of its vivid appearance because fluorescent yellow was one of the most successful and probably the most visible. However, like I mentioned in the original post, bass in well lit environments are believed to hide their rods behind their cones. This could explain their difficulty to associate the fluorescent white line with food, but still they did well with the clear line. So it must be something else.  

 

What I would like to see is the same experiment done in low light and darkness to see how the fluorescent white matched up.  

[aavery2]

Good read.  However, it seems like the test would have been better if they would have presented the fish with all of the colors instead of just two.  Then once the fish reached criterion with the braided strand, they should have randomly mixed all of the lines leaving the same line as the reward line for the single strand.  THEN they should have seen how well the fish could discern between the lines.  This would leave the fish to only use color discernment to find the reward line instead of going back to the same spot to pull on the line or merely guessing between the two. Although not perfect, I think this would add more control to the experiment and eliminate some of the randomness. 

 

 It's weird how the fluorescent white line seemed to be the worst to reach criterion, but the clear line was one of the best Look out Berkley Nanofil! Haha who knows though. I don't think the bass would blatantly shy away from it because of its vivid appearance because fluorescent yellow was one of the most successful and probably the most visible. However, like I mentioned in the original post, bass in well lit environments are believed to hide their rods behind their cones. This could explain their difficulty to associate the fluorescent white line with food, but still they did well with the clear line. So it must be something else.  

I would like to use your mention of fluorescent yellow to make a point or ask a question.   So we can assume from the test that a bass can indeed see what we call fluorescent yellow, a color that appears as a very bright yellow to humans, our optic nerve passes a signal to the visual cortex or our brain and fluorescent yellow is seen as a bright yellow color to us.  So what about a bass, as  mentioned we can assume that the bass can see fluorescent yellow, but what we don't know is how a fishes optic nerve processes that information and sends it to the the visual cortex of their brain.  They may interpret fluorescent yellow as a checkerboard, or something that we cannot even comprehend. 

 

So when someone says a bass can see green, it only means that a bass can see what we interpret as green, it may be something entirely different to them, or not.

[Ozark_Basser]

I would like to use your mention of fluorescent yellow to make a point or ask a question.   So we can assume from the test that a bass can indeed see what we call fluorescent yellow, a color that appears as a very bright yellow to humans, our optic nerve passes a signal to the visual cortex or our brain and fluorescent yellow is seen as a bright yellow color to us.  So what about a bass, as  mentioned we can assume that the bass can see fluorescent yellow, but what we don't know is how a fishes optic nerve processes that information and sends it to the the visual cortex of their brain.  They may interpret fluorescent yellow as a checkerboard, or something that we cannot even comprehend. 

 

So when someone says a bass can see green, it only means that a bass can see what we interpret as green, it may be something entirely different to them, or not.

I totally agree with you aavery, but i'm not buying the bass a dress, I'm just trying to get her to bite lol. So I guess it doesn't really matter. Jokes aside, you make an interesting conjecture. If we knew exactly how the bass sees ....well anything... we could probably find a way or two to manipulate that in our favor. 

[Paul Roberts]

I would like to use your mention of fluorescent yellow to make a point or ask a question.   So we can assume from the test that a bass can indeed see what we call fluorescent yellow, a color that appears as a very bright yellow to humans, our optic nerve passes a signal to the visual cortex or our brain and fluorescent yellow is seen as a bright yellow color to us.  So what about a bass, as  mentioned we can assume that the bass can see fluorescent yellow, but what we don't know is how a fishes optic nerve processes that information and sends it to the the visual cortex of their brain.  They may interpret fluorescent yellow as a checkerboard, or something that we cannot even comprehend. 

 

So when someone says a bass can see green, it only means that a bass can see what we interpret as green, it may be something entirely different to them, or not.

 

Fish don't even have a "visual cortex"; that's a mammalian add-on. Apparently, fish process visual info right in the mesencephalon (known in fish as the "optic lobes") without sending it on for processing in the neocortex like mammals do.

[Ozark_Basser]

I would like to use your mention of fluorescent yellow to make a point or ask a question.   So we can assume from the test that a bass can indeed see what we call fluorescent yellow, a color that appears as a very bright yellow to humans, our optic nerve passes a signal to the visual cortex or our brain and fluorescent yellow is seen as a bright yellow color to us.  So what about a bass, as  mentioned we can assume that the bass can see fluorescent yellow, but what we don't know is how a fishes optic nerve processes that information and sends it to the the visual cortex of their brain.  They may interpret fluorescent yellow as a checkerboard, or something that we cannot even comprehend. 

 

So when someone says a bass can see green, it only means that a bass can see what we interpret as green, it may be something entirely different to them, or not.

 

But what about the contrast to the fish's surroundings in the lines that worked compared to the ones that didn't? That has to count for something.  You'd think that a fluorescent white line out in the lake would show up before anything else even to fish solely due to how it contrasts with everything else.  I guess I shouldn't have even mentioned the fact that the fluorescent yellow is the most visible.  It is to us.  I guess I'm really just trying to prove to myself that bass can in fact see a lot like we do, but evidence from this test cleary states different. 

[Paul Roberts]

...

So when someone says a bass can see green, it only means that a bass can see what we interpret as green, it may be something entirely different to them, or not.

 

I'm trying to stay outta this, for several reasons: discussing color in fishing is like discussing religion, and I haven't put together what I want to say about it to my satisfaction yet. But... 

 

There is one assumption (and yes its an assumption but one that's got some heavy backing) we can make about "green" to bass and humans. It's the same "green", regardless of the potential variations in brightness, saturation, hue, and... neuronal, emotional, interpretations elicited. Bass not only see red to green wavelengths of visible light but have two peak spectral sensitivities at yellow-green and red-orange. The proper question is, "What function might this serve?" The answer is that the green is adapted to bass original environment -an adaptation to vegetated environments -both rooted and planktonic that reflect greens and absorb shorter and longer wavelengths. This is not only suggested by looking at bass, but holds for a number of fish from various taxonomic groups having vision adapted to their environments. Why the red? It's considered a derived, later evolved, add-on to provide contrast to separate camouflaged prey from that green background.

 

Can we use this info? Possibly, yes, at times. But... the real question is, when does "color" trump other factors in the real world -a very very big complex place. Thus there's a heck of lot more to the story on any given fishing day. And in fishing, not all of that is even about "what the bass can see".

 

Kevin Van Dam relates a story in one of his books" (paraphrased):

Four pros were sharing a large main lake point, and catching bass on worms. Each found a particular color that drew the most strikes. "The only one that worked", they each said when it was over. Interesting thing was, all four ended up "divining" 4 entirely different colors! Obviously, there's more to these angler's stories than "what the bass can see".

[Catt]

Unknown, I would assume it was done in a controlled environment to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Controlled envitoment?

Ya mean aquarium?

Where's your various depths which lessen light penetration?

Where's your water clairity, clear, blue, green, tannic?

How about some good old fashion rain runoff?

How about variations in sky color?

How about angles of the sun due to season?

What about winds?

What about algae?

All found in nature but removed in the name of "science"!

[aavery2]

Fish don't even have a "visual cortex"; that's a mammalian add-on. Apparently, fish process visual info right in the mesencephalon (known in fish as the "optic lobes") without sending it on for processing in the neocortex like mammals do.

Thanks for sharing,  I was not aware of that, my intention was to only stimulate a discussion based on the difference in what we see and process and the possible difference  in bass.

[aavery2]

Catt, we may be crossing two different lines of thought.  The original post,

 

Texas Hawg Hunter, on 03 Dec 2014 - 6:41 PM, said:

As a PhD researcher in behavioral science, I would recommend sticking to what bass actually do in response to different color lures...that's what you really want to know anyway.  

In my thoughts he was suggesting that it is a simple as  putting a lure in front of bass and observing its response, my questions about light and water color had more to do with how the lure will present itself in the water.  This is a function of light and the filtering effects of different water colors, so the same lure may look very different depending on conditions.   

 

In the research they were only trying to determine if a bass can see color and to what degree.    The test was not to prove that a bass can discern the color green in every environmental condition,  heck we can't even do that and I like to think our brains are a least a little more evolved than a fish.

 

I don't know how good of a job I have done at explaining what I feel the difference is, but hopefully you can see where I make the destinction  at least.

[aavery2]

I'm trying to stay outta this, for several reasons: discussing color in fishing is like discussing religion, and I haven't put together what I want to say about it to my satisfaction yet. But... 

 

There is one assumption (and yes its an assumption but one that's got some heavy backing) we can make about "green" to bass and humans. It's the same "green", regardless of the potential variations in brightness, saturation, hue, and... neuronal, emotional, interpretations elicited. Bass not only see red to green wavelengths of visible light but have two peak spectral sensitivities at yellow-green and red-orange. The proper question is, "What function might this serve?" The answer is that the green is adapted to bass original environment -an adaptation to vegetated environments -both rooted and planktonic that reflect greens and absorb shorter and longer wavelengths. This is not only suggested by looking at bass, but holds for a number of fish from various taxonomic groups having vision adapted to their environments. Why the red? It's considered a derived, later evolved, add-on to provide contrast to separate camouflaged prey from that green background.

 

Can we use this info? Possibly, yes, at times. But... the real question is, when does "color" trump other factors in the real world -a very very big complex place. Thus there's a heck of lot more to the story on any given fishing day. And in fishing, not all of that is even about "what the bass can see".

 

Kevin Van Dam relates a story in one of his books" (paraphrased):

Four pros were sharing a large main lake point, and catching bass on worms. Each found a particular color that drew the most strikes. "The only one that worked", they each said when it was over. Interesting thing was, all four ended up "divining" 4 entirely different colors! Obviously, there's more to these angler's stories than "what the bass can see".

Paul, thank you for your post.   I have read an article that is much the same as what you stated in your first paragraph.   The article if I recall correctly was about trout or salmon, and it went on to make the point  that they were born with more green receptive cones in their eyes as juveniles to help them locate plankton on which they would primarily feed.  Later their eyes would develop to have more red receptive cones to help them isolate prey in cover as you also suggested.

 

I believe all of this only helps to prove that bass and other fish have highly evolved color vision.  If they see green as we see green and red as we see red, is a much more difficult thing to prove but based on the articles I have read about the chemicals found in the nerve cells of their eyes, it would seem that many scientists would make that argument.

 

Please don't stay out of this conversation, it is important to have your input.

[Sam]

After I give Auggie time to order his copy of Dr. Jones' book I will post the info Dr. Jones sent to me so other guys and gals can order the remaining books while they last.

 

Great investment and fantastic information.

 

I strongly suggest you obtain a copy at a cost of $25 and read/study the information to learn all you can about your adversary.

 

Dr. Jones uses scientific methods to determine how bass see colors and many other aspects of the animal's body.

 

Will post the information over the weekend so be on the lookout for it.

 

Sam

[RMcDuffee726]

Impossible to tell.  Everything is assumption.  No scientific studies have been completed or published in peer reviewed papers to determine a actual scientific fact how bass see color.

[Mike L]

Whew

I thought I was a pretty smart guy (just ask my grandkids)

Until Threads like this are started.

A smart man once said....

"The things I know about, I know a lot about them

but the things I don't know about, I don't know $*#*"

Thanks Fellas,

I learned something today

Mike

[hawgenvy]

"Interesting" is what motivates me to fish in the first place! Time in "the library" is part of my fishing time.

 

 

I'm aware of what you are talking about, and have seen it too. However, images -run through all the iterations from ccd to printing- can be deceiving. That one image is of low resolution and highly pixilated. Many shadow areas are "blue" in such images. You are catching floridanus, right?

 

 

I agree. There is an awful lot of science (best attempts in a complex and imperfect world) that underlies what we presently know about bass, and there's more to come. Doubt anyone would give all that up -have it erased from memory- and have a go with a blank slate, stick and string.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that line color, even visibility, probably plays a generally small role in affecting bites.

Floridanus, for sure. Yes, it is not so obvious in that photo but it does look just like that "in person," a pale almost irridescent turqoise blue under the lower jaw and on the operculum. Will eventually have a photo of my own that shows it well. And aavery2, do you have the reference for your quote in post #41?