Scientific Bass Information

[jimmyjoe]

  

On 1/28/2021 at 7:43 PM, WRB said:

Bill painted 10 of same diving crank baits using to his trained eye under controlled lighting the same color shade of white from 10 different suppliers. One caught more bass then the others so he repainted the 9 using the same brand and shade of white paint. The results were 8 of 10 caught bass. White is white or is it? 

We don’t know how the basses brain interpreted color spectrum wave length.

Tom

 

   This goes with something that I've been thinking for a long time; reflectivity. I don't understand how it works, but I've noticed that certain shiny, reflective finishes don't do well. I think depth has a lot to do with it, but I can't get a handle on the critical mechanism yet. I used to think the mechanism was the reflectivity of shad scales, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

   It's like walking in the moonlight. Some things are almost the same as in daylight. Some things are different, but in a weird way. And some things are invisible. Everything around had better blend in with that pattern, or it stands out too much, and looks unnatural.

 

   Just a thought.                    jj

[RyanCastin]

12 hours ago, trout123 said:

A little of topic but Im thinking of studying Fisheries Biology (I think thats what its called) in college. Do you know what its like and if it is a good major? I want to do something in the field and not sit infront of a computer as much as I can lol.

Yes that is a great major! It would be pretty tough but don’t let that stop you. As an environmental major I’ve had to take a lot of biology, ecology, and environmental courses. I’m sure the same goes for fisheries biology as these three disciplines are very interconnected. It has been a tough major for sure, but pair it with an easier minor (or no minor and just easy electives) and it won’t be bad! I would highly recommend doing it if you are interested and your interest will take you a long way and keep you motivated! If you haven’t found a college yet, I recommend looking into Regis University. All of my professors have been amazing there and good professors make class much more enjoyable! Also they give out many scholarships to reduce the cost of their expensive tuition.

2 hours ago, MGF said:

I used to design light and color measurement systems so I can speak to the science of color some. The sun gives off a well know spectrum...range of wave lengths. Anything that light passes through acts as a filter and blocks some wave lengths more than other...changing the "color". Our x, y, z color definitions are literally based on the performance of the human eye in experiments done long ago.

 

Additionally different animals see differently...I think deer see blues the best, some animals are mostly color blind etc. I don't know about fish.

 

As a former avid scuba diver I can tell you that by the time you get 30 or 40 ft down a beautiful coral reef is colorless unless you bring a light to shine on it. I used to bring a bunch of colored discs under water to demonstrate to students. Of course not all people perceive color the same  the same.

 

Of course it doesn't look the same to the fish as it does to you. 

 

The very term "color" implies some subjectivity. A completely objective description would  be raw energy numbers obtained with a radiospectrometer. The conversion to color coordinates is an attempt to predict how a human would perceive it.

 

 

Love that you can bring in the perspective of a diver yourself! And yes, I know that color is subjective however for the sake of all of the no science background people on this forum I decided to stick with the subjective terms because it makes a lot more sense to most people than raw energy numbers. Do you have any insight on colors in eutrophic vs. oligotrophic lakes at different depths? More so, how the colors are distorted under the differences in water color/light spectrum that enters the water? 
 

Thanks!

[RyanCastin]

2 hours ago, bulldog1935 said:

Back to that red lure discussion - where pink and red lures become important is low angle sunlight, both early and late - rather than reflected light, the fish see light transmitted through the baitfish insides - the blood in the baitfish acting like a lens filter.    

Yes I’m glad you brought this up! The most light is reflected from the surface of the water at mid-day and the most light penetrates the water at lower angles! Therefore, with red spectrums of light not entering very deep into the water column, they likely reach a bit further as the sun is at a lower angle! 

1 hour ago, jimmyjoe said:

  

 

   This goes with something that I've been thinking for a long time; reflectivity. I don't understand how it works, but I've noticed that certain shiny, reflective finishes don't do well. I think depth has a lot to do with it, but I can't get a handle on the critical mechanism yet. I used to think the mechanism was the reflectivity of shad scales, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

   It's like walking in the moonlight. Some things are almost the same as in daylight. Some things are different, but in a weird way. And some things are invisible. Everything around had better blend in with that pattern, or it stands out too much, and looks unnatural.

 

   Just a thought.                    jj

Reflectivity definitely has an important role in colors as fish perceive them! That is why many fish are attracted to spinner baits/ and baits that reflect light well. I do not know all of the details of this, but will look into it further. 

[bulldog1935]

my experience is fish queue on flash with small baitfish that form moving balls for defense.  

Fish may hit flashy lures very much larger than the bait - their reaction is slashing into the bait ball.  

[RyanCastin]

1 minute ago, bulldog1935 said:

my experience is fish queue on flash with small baitfish that form moving balls.  

Fish may hit lures very much larger than the bait - their reaction is slashing into the bait ball.  

Yes that is correct! Another interesting fact about bait balls is that the predatory fish can not actually distinguish individual fish out of the bait ball unless they stray too far away from the group. This is due to most predatory fish being either near-sighted or far-sighted. I will pull out the book later and put in some more info on largemouth regarding to this. This is mentioned in the book I referred earlier in the thread. 

1 minute ago, RyanCastin said:

Yes that is correct! Another interesting fact about bait balls is that the predatory fish can not actually distinguish individual fish out of the bait ball unless they stray too far away from the group. This is due to most predatory fish being either near-sighted or far-sighted. I will pull out the book later and put in some more info on largemouth regarding to this. This is mentioned in the book I referred earlier in the thread. 

Further, the baitfish actually make bait balls as a response to predators. It is the group-size effect (if there’s more of us closer together, I myself have a lower chance of being eaten than if I was by myself)

[MGF]

45 minutes ago, RyanCastin said:

 

  Do you have any insight on colors in eutrophic vs. oligotrophic lakes at different depths? More so, how the colors are distorted under the differences in water color/light spectrum that enters the water? 
 

Thanks!

More related to observations than measurement but any turbidity or particulate in the water reduces light penetration. That is probably a no brainer but the effect can be really severe in the case of an algae bloom or a sulfide layer. A sulfide layer a few feet thick can block all visible light. Algae (for example) can tint everything the color of the algae...I guess by way of reflection?

 

We might not be fishing in or below a sulfide layer (at least not on  purpose) but algae, tannins and minerals come into play.

 

But it makes me wonder how often we're pond fishing and throwing our lure into a nasty pool of sulfide where nothing is living.

 

 

[Team9nine]

55 minutes ago, RyanCastin said:

Another interesting fact about bait balls is that the predatory fish can not actually distinguish individual fish out of the bait ball unless they stray too far away from the group. This is due to most predatory fish being either near-sighted or far-sighted.

 

You mean I just wasted a ton of money on all those LiveTarget BaitBall cranks I bought last year with the super fancy school of fish paint jobs ? ?

[trout123]

5 hours ago, RyanCastin said:

Yes that is a great major! It would be pretty tough but don’t let that stop you. As an environmental major I’ve had to take a lot of biology, ecology, and environmental courses. I’m sure the same goes for fisheries biology as these three disciplines are very interconnected. It has been a tough major for sure, but pair it with an easier minor (or no minor and just easy electives) and it won’t be bad! I would highly recommend doing it if you are interested and your interest will take you a long way and keep you motivated! If you haven’t found a college yet, I recommend looking into Regis University. All of my professors have been amazing there and good professors make class much more enjoyable! Also they give out many scholarships to reduce the cost of their expensive tuition.

 

Do you know if they have an archery program? Im a very competitive archer and being able to shoot on a team there would be really helpful.

[RyanCastin]

5 hours ago, trout123 said:

Do you know if they have an archery program? Im a very competitive archer and being able to shoot on a team there would be really helpful.

Im not sure that they do but they are very open to students creating their own clubs and programs so Im sure you could easily get that started with a few buddies. It is a great school. I used to hate school until I came to Regis, and now I love going to school and have enjoyed every year of it. Out of all my professors in 4 years Ive only had one that I didnt like. He was a history professor though so wasnt related to my major.

[trout123]

2 hours ago, RyanCastin said:

Im not sure that they do but they are very open to students creating their own clubs and programs so Im sure you could easily get that started with a few buddies. It is a great school. I used to hate school until I came to Regis, and now I love going to school and have enjoyed every year of it. Out of all my professors in 4 years Ive only had one that I didnt like. He was a history professor though so wasnt related to my major.

Thank you for the advice, I will make sure to add it to the list of colleges Im thinking about going to!

[MIbassyaker]

Sorry, this will probably be tl; dr....I'm procrastinating again from something else I should be doing, but here goes:

 

My background is neuroscience, not fisheries biology, but I can add a little about principles of vertebrate color vision. Most of what we know comes from work on humans and other mammals, although all vertebrate visual systems follow the same principles (yes, with many variations in parts and tuning, but the same basic rules are followed everywhere). 

 

The first thing to understand is that color is your brain's way of telling the difference between different wavelengths of light.  We cannot know how bass experience color subjectively...but by exactly the same logic, I cannot know how you experience color subjectively either.  However we can find out how well non-humans like bass can distinguish between differently-colored stimuli the same way we can with humans: Get them to make different responses for different colors.

 

So it's not helpful to get hung up over what bass "see"...let's worry about what they can detect and what they can distinguish, both of which can be determined from behavior in visual discrimination experiments:  Train the fish to select a visual target in order to receive a reward (or avoid a shock). Then, test whether they can tell the difference between the rewarded target vs. a different one by giving them a choice. 

 

A good example is this recent study, which has generated some discussion on these boards and elsewhere (freely-available study, no subscription needed -- hooray for open-access publishing!):

https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/65/1/43/4924236

 

This study found that bass easily detect and discriminate red & green (or more precisely, reflected light off objects that we see as red and green), but have difficulty telling the difference between blue and black, and between chartreuse-yellow and white. The same thing has been suggested repeatedly by prior studies, although this one upped the ante by testing both visual choice behavior, and light-sensitivity of cells in the actual eye tissue upon dissection. 

 

How can we make sense of this?

 

All animals with visual systems have a light-sensitive cells in the eye that are tuned optimally to detect particular light wavelengths (with a smooth drop-off above and below that optimal wavelength -- giving the cell a range that it is most sensitive to).  A single such cell supports the ability to detect the degree of light shining onto it, with a wavelength falling within its sensitive range. 

 

Most vertebrates have two types of cells that do this: Rods, which are tuned to a broad range and support low-light, but monochrome (black and white) vision, and cones, which are tuned to narrow ranges. Rods can tell us about the level of light, but not color. It is the cones that support color vision because their narrow ranges make them sensitive to only some wavelengths and not others. Species frequently differ in how many different cones they have. If you had just one type of cone, that wouldn't do much. You'd see differences in light intensity, but you wouldn't tell the difference between high vs. low wavelengths. 

 

But if you have two cones tuned to different wavelengths, that  gives you some ability to distinguish wavelengths from each other: Say, a "high" wavelength cell and a "low" wavelength cell.  They would give unequal responses depending on what the wavelength is, and if the cones give different responses, you now have enough information to support a perceptual difference between colors. Essentially, the difference between the responses of the two cones is a color signal; the difference can be large or small, and can go in one direction or another...you have a range of responses that reflect a range of wavelengths, as long as those wavelengths fall within the sensitive ranges of the cones. 

 

There is one wrinkle though: The two cones would give the same response under two situations: (1) there is more than one wavelength of light present, thus stimulating both cones, or (2) there is one wavelength falling directly between the two cones' peak sensitivities, where the ranges overlap and stimulating the two cones equally. Because these two situations result in the same response of both cones, the color signal is identical, meaning there is no way to tell the difference between the two. However, with three cones rather than two, this difference can be resolved, because three cones support an additional color signal beyond that supported by two cones.  

 

And this is the key to understanding the findings of the study linked above: the results are consistent with bass having two types of cones, whereas humans have three. 

 

In humans, long wavelengths generate a perception of red, medium generate green, and short generate blue. White is based stimulation of all three at once. Yellow is based on about equal stimulation long and medium, but both greater than short. The human visual system calculates two signals based on wavelength detection: Long vs Medium and (Long+Medium) vs. Short.  Perception of red and green is based on the first signal, while perception of blue and yellow is based on the second signal.  The distinction between these signals is the basis for color afterimages: staring at something red for about 30 seconds or more gives you a green afterimage (and vice-versa) when you shift your gaze. The same is true of blue and yellow as a pair. It is also the reason why the most common kind of colorblindness affects red and green selectively -- most people who are colorblind are "red-green colorblind", where they see color, but have difficulty telling the difference between red and green.....this is a selective dysfunction in the first of the two signals.

 

In bass however, the experimental evidence suggests they have the first of these two signals, but not the second. They have two cones with maximum sensitivity at similar wavelengths as our long and medium cones, giving them good recognition of red and green. However, in a two-cone system like this, yellow and white should produce the same response (high response out of both cones), and blue and black should produce the same response (low response out of both cones). That is a prediction that falls naturally out of this kind of 2-cone system, and the study cited above verified that prediction by experiment for largemouth bass.

 

So what about your lures?  In the study cited above, and others like it, the intensity of light reflectance was held constant for the purpose of control.  Of course, your actual lures do not reflect light at the same intensity. Bass can of course detect differences in intensity, even when they cannot detect differences between two wavelengths. I don't have a citation in front of me, but I recall encountering evidence bass have very good "twilight" vision, supported by very sensitive rod cells. That same sensitivity would apply to subtle distinctions in intensity, as long as the environment is not too bright. 

 

In many cases, I suspect that when anglers feel bass are distinguishing between subtle differences in color (beyond variations of reds and greens, perhaps), what may really be going on is the bass are responding to intensity: levels of overall "bright" vs. "dark".  Many versions of Black & Blue, for instance, may simply be "Dark, but some variation in how dark it is".  Also, some variations of chartreuse may be more greenish than yellow, creating a distinction from white.  And many baits that look otherwise similar, may differ in degree of contrast between light and dark; bass may be especially attentive to countershading contrasts, for instance. All this is to say, in actual lures, a color difference may not actually be about color itself. 

[txchaser]

27 minutes ago, MIbassyaker said:

Sorry, this will probably be tl; dr....I'm procrastinating again from something else I should be doing, but but here goes:

 

My background is neuroscience, not fisheries biology, but I can add a little about principles of vertebrate color vision. Most of what we know comes from work on humans and other mammals, although all vertebrate visual systems follow the same principles (yes, with many variations in parts and tuning, but the same basic rules are followed everywhere). 

 

The first thing to understand is that color is your brain's way of telling the difference between different wavelengths of light.  We cannot know how bass experience color subjectively...but by exactly the same logic, I cannot know how you experience color subjectively either.  However we can find out how well non-humans like bass can distinguish between differently-colored stimuli the same way we can with humans: Get them to make different responses for different colors.

 

So it's not helpful to get hung up over what bass "see"...let's worry about what they can detect and what they can distinguish, both of which can be determined from behavior in visual discrimination experiments:  Train the fish to select a visual target in order to receive a reward (or avoid a shock). Then, test whether they can tell the difference between the rewarded target vs. a different one by giving them a choice. 

 

A good example is this recent study, which has generated some discussion on these boards and elsewhere (freely-available study, no subscription needed -- hooray for open-access publishing!):

https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/65/1/43/4924236

 

This study found that bass easily detect and discriminate red & green (or more precisely, reflected light off objects that we see as red and green), but have difficulty telling the difference between blue and black, and between chartreuse-yellow and white. The same thing has been suggested repeatedly by prior studies, although this one upped the ante by testing both visual choice behavior, and light-sensitivity of cells in the actual eye tissue upon dissection. 

 

How can we make sense of this?

 

All animals with visual systems have a light-sensitive cells in the eye that are tuned optimally to detect particular light wavelengths (with a smooth drop-off above and below that optimal wavelength -- giving the cell a range that it is most sensitive to).  A single such cell supports the ability to detect the degree of light shining onto it, with a wavelength falling within its sensitive range. 

 

Most vertebrates have two types of cells that do this: Rods, which are tuned to a broad range and support low-light, but monochrome (black and white) vision, and cones, which are tuned to narrow ranges. Rods can tell us about the level of light, but not color. It is the cones that support color vision because their narrow ranges make them sensitive to only some wavelengths and not others. Species frequently differ in how many different cones they have. If you had just one type of cone, that wouldn't do much. You'd see differences in light intensity, but you wouldn't tell the difference between high vs. low wavelengths. 

 

But if you have two cones tuned to different wavelengths, that  gives you some discrimination: Say, a "high" wavelength cell and a "low" wavelength cell.  They would give unequal responses depending on what the wavelength is, and the difference between these responses is a color signal. The difference can be large or small, and can go in one direction or another, permitting the ability to distinguish a range of wavelength differences, as long as those wavelengths fall within the sensitive ranges of the cones. 

 

There is one wrinkle though: The two cones would give the same response under two situations: (1) there is more than one wavelength of light present, thus stimulating both cones, or (2) there is one wavelength falling directly between the two cones where their sensitivities overlap, stimulating them equally. Because they give the same response, the color signal sent by these two situations is identical, meaning there is no way to tell the difference between them. With three cones rather than two, however, this difference can be resolved, because responses from three cones support an additional color signal beyond what is supported by two.  

 

And this is the key to understanding the findings of the study linked above: the results are consistent with bass having two types of cones, whereas humans have three. 

 

In humans, long wavelengths generate a perception of red, medium generate green, and short generate blue. White is based stimulation of all three at once. Yellow is based on about equal stimulation long and medium, but both greater than short. The Human visual system  calculates two signals based on wavelength detection: Long vs Medium and (Long+Medium) vs. Short.  Perception of red and green is based on the first signal, while perception of blue and yellow is based on the second signal.  The distinction between these signals is the basis for color afterimages: staring at something red for about 30 seconds or more gives you a green afterimage (and vice-versa) when you shift your gaze. The same is true of blue and yellow as a pair. It is also the reason why the most common kind of colorblindness affects red and green selectively -- it's a selective dysfunction in the first signal.

 

In bass however, the experimental evidence suggests they have the first of these two signals, but not the second. They have two cones with maximum sensitivity around the same wavelengths as our long and medium, giving them good recognition of red and green. However, in a two-cone system like this, yellow and white should produce the same response (high response out of both cones), and blue and black should produce the same response (low response out of both cones).

 

So what about your lures?  In the study cited above, and others like it, the intensity of light reflectance was held constant for the purpose of control.  Of course, your actual lures do not reflect light at the same intensity. Bass can of course detect differences in intensity, even when they cannot detect differences between two wavelengths. I don't have a citation in front of me, but I recall encountering evidence bass have very good "twilight" vision, supported by very sensitive rod cells. That same sensitivity would apply to subtle distinctions in intensity, as long as the environment is not too bright. 

 

In many cases, I suspect that when anglers feel bass are distinguishing between subtle differences in color (beyond variations of reds and greens, perhaps), what may really be going on is the bass are responding to intensity: levels of overall "bright" vs. "dark".  Many versions of Black & Blue, for instance, may simply be "Dark, but some variation in how dark it is".  Also, some variations of chartreuse may be more greenish than yellow, creating a distinction from white.  And many baits that look otherwise similar, may differ in degree of contrast between light and dark; bass may be especially attentive to countershading contrasts, for instance. All this is to say, in actual lures, a color difference may not actually be about color itself. 

@MIbassyaker 

Ok first, please make more posts like this. This is absolutely outstanding. 

Second, can you talk a little about how flake would interact in bass vision system? I'm guessing that a chart flake in white or a blue flake in black would make a bit of a spike in the level, and thus be more distinguishable than simply a color change. 

Third, how should we think about gold and silver in this context, both the colors themselves and the reflectivity?

Finally on an overcast day are the rods also working, or likely not and is still just cones. 

 

[Deleted account]

On 1/30/2021 at 7:52 AM, bulldog1935 said:

Back to that red lure discussion - where pink and red lures become important is low angle sunlight, both early and late - rather than reflected light, the fish see light transmitted through the baitfish insides - the blood in the baitfish acting like a lens filter.    

While I don't disagree that red, orange and pink can be great colors in low light conditions, I think the  "flashlight through the hand" hypothesis is a stretch.

[bulldog1935]

it's about the angle of the incident sunlight - in our case, light from the sub-tropical sun is not low, it's just low-angle.  

Many prismatic lures are made to take advantage of it - they reflect green, but they transmit pink - just like the natural bait does. 

No accident, they made them this way on purpose, and nobody is stretching anything, except maybe their pride.  

 

 good photos I took, huh? ?

The lure just above is Flash-J wasabi or something - can't read the color, it's in Japanese (but the word "color" is in English).  

The lure just below is YoZuri Wakebait - Gizzard shad - replaced the bronze trebles and split rings for salt.  

starting or ending the day to take advantage of it pays off

[RyanCastin]

12 hours ago, MIbassyaker said:

Sorry, this will probably be tl; dr....I'm procrastinating again from something else I should be doing, but here goes:

 

My background is neuroscience, not fisheries biology, but I can add a little about principles of vertebrate color vision. Most of what we know comes from work on humans and other mammals, although all vertebrate visual systems follow the same principles (yes, with many variations in parts and tuning, but the same basic rules are followed everywhere). 

 

The first thing to understand is that color is your brain's way of telling the difference between different wavelengths of light.  We cannot know how bass experience color subjectively...but by exactly the same logic, I cannot know how you experience color subjectively either.  However we can find out how well non-humans like bass can distinguish between differently-colored stimuli the same way we can with humans: Get them to make different responses for different colors.

 

So it's not helpful to get hung up over what bass "see"...let's worry about what they can detect and what they can distinguish, both of which can be determined from behavior in visual discrimination experiments:  Train the fish to select a visual target in order to receive a reward (or avoid a shock). Then, test whether they can tell the difference between the rewarded target vs. a different one by giving them a choice. 

 

A good example is this recent study, which has generated some discussion on these boards and elsewhere (freely-available study, no subscription needed -- hooray for open-access publishing!):

https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/65/1/43/4924236

 

This study found that bass easily detect and discriminate red & green (or more precisely, reflected light off objects that we see as red and green), but have difficulty telling the difference between blue and black, and between chartreuse-yellow and white. The same thing has been suggested repeatedly by prior studies, although this one upped the ante by testing both visual choice behavior, and light-sensitivity of cells in the actual eye tissue upon dissection. 

 

How can we make sense of this?

 

All animals with visual systems have a light-sensitive cells in the eye that are tuned optimally to detect particular light wavelengths (with a smooth drop-off above and below that optimal wavelength -- giving the cell a range that it is most sensitive to).  A single such cell supports the ability to detect the degree of light shining onto it, with a wavelength falling within its sensitive range. 

 

Most vertebrates have two types of cells that do this: Rods, which are tuned to a broad range and support low-light, but monochrome (black and white) vision, and cones, which are tuned to narrow ranges. Rods can tell us about the level of light, but not color. It is the cones that support color vision because their narrow ranges make them sensitive to only some wavelengths and not others. Species frequently differ in how many different cones they have. If you had just one type of cone, that wouldn't do much. You'd see differences in light intensity, but you wouldn't tell the difference between high vs. low wavelengths. 

 

But if you have two cones tuned to different wavelengths, that  gives you some ability to distinguish wavelengths from each other: Say, a "high" wavelength cell and a "low" wavelength cell.  They would give unequal responses depending on what the wavelength is, and if the cones give different responses, you now have enough information to support a perceptual difference between colors. Essentially, the difference between the responses of the two cones is a color signal; the difference can be large or small, and can go in one direction or another...you have a range of responses that reflect a range of wavelengths, as long as those wavelengths fall within the sensitive ranges of the cones. 

 

There is one wrinkle though: The two cones would give the same response under two situations: (1) there is more than one wavelength of light present, thus stimulating both cones, or (2) there is one wavelength falling directly between the two cones' peak sensitivities, where the ranges overlap and stimulating the two cones equally. Because these two situations result in the same response of both cones, the color signal is identical, meaning there is no way to tell the difference between the two. However, with three cones rather than two, this difference can be resolved, because three cones support an additional color signal beyond that supported by two cones.  

 

And this is the key to understanding the findings of the study linked above: the results are consistent with bass having two types of cones, whereas humans have three. 

 

In humans, long wavelengths generate a perception of red, medium generate green, and short generate blue. White is based stimulation of all three at once. Yellow is based on about equal stimulation long and medium, but both greater than short. The human visual system calculates two signals based on wavelength detection: Long vs Medium and (Long+Medium) vs. Short.  Perception of red and green is based on the first signal, while perception of blue and yellow is based on the second signal.  The distinction between these signals is the basis for color afterimages: staring at something red for about 30 seconds or more gives you a green afterimage (and vice-versa) when you shift your gaze. The same is true of blue and yellow as a pair. It is also the reason why the most common kind of colorblindness affects red and green selectively -- most people who are colorblind are "red-green colorblind", where they see color, but have difficulty telling the difference between red and green.....this is a selective dysfunction in the first of the two signals.

 

In bass however, the experimental evidence suggests they have the first of these two signals, but not the second. They have two cones with maximum sensitivity at similar wavelengths as our long and medium cones, giving them good recognition of red and green. However, in a two-cone system like this, yellow and white should produce the same response (high response out of both cones), and blue and black should produce the same response (low response out of both cones). That is a prediction that falls naturally out of this kind of 2-cone system, and the study cited above verified that prediction by experiment for largemouth bass.

 

So what about your lures?  In the study cited above, and others like it, the intensity of light reflectance was held constant for the purpose of control.  Of course, your actual lures do not reflect light at the same intensity. Bass can of course detect differences in intensity, even when they cannot detect differences between two wavelengths. I don't have a citation in front of me, but I recall encountering evidence bass have very good "twilight" vision, supported by very sensitive rod cells. That same sensitivity would apply to subtle distinctions in intensity, as long as the environment is not too bright. 

 

In many cases, I suspect that when anglers feel bass are distinguishing between subtle differences in color (beyond variations of reds and greens, perhaps), what may really be going on is the bass are responding to intensity: levels of overall "bright" vs. "dark".  Many versions of Black & Blue, for instance, may simply be "Dark, but some variation in how dark it is".  Also, some variations of chartreuse may be more greenish than yellow, creating a distinction from white.  And many baits that look otherwise similar, may differ in degree of contrast between light and dark; bass may be especially attentive to countershading contrasts, for instance. All this is to say, in actual lures, a color difference may not actually be about color itself. 

Thanks for bringing so much information into the thread! I love hearing from people with different disciplines as they all can work together to create a better understanding of the natural world. It is interesting that you brought up the idea of bass having only two cones, while us humans have three. I have not learned as much about that topic but it has been mentioned in some courses (rods vs. cones). I'm also happy that you gave us background on the differences between having 2 and 3 cones. The idea that intensity is likely to play a bigger role in bass perception gives an explanation to the "study" that was mentioned earlier in this thread with bass reacting differently to different whites.

 

Now with all of this information about their actual eyesight, we can get a better understanding of how they perceive "color" in eutrophic vs. oligotrophic lakes. While eutrophic lakes are green-brown in color and oligotrophic lakes are clear-blue in color, it makes me hypothesize that a white (or chartreuse) lure would be perceived to the bass as a lighter shade of green (based on you saying that bass can perceive red-green) as the white wavelength mixes with the green wavelengths of the water. Then, with more depth I would imagine that this white becomes a darker and darker green. And in oligotrophic lakes I would have to hypothesize that a white (or chartreuse) lure would not be perceived differently in terms of color but most likely would in terms of intensity at different depths. Also we must note that red wavelengths do not penetrate deep into the water - so although bass can perceive red-green the red wavelengths likely don't play much of a role in their vision.

3 hours ago, bulldog1935 said:

it's about the angle of the incident sunlight - in our case, light from the sub-tropical sun is not low, it's just low-angle.  

Many prismatic lures are made to take advantage of it - they reflect green, but they transmit pink - just like the natural bait does. 

No accident, they made them this way on purpose, and nobody is stretching anything, except maybe their pride.  

 

 good photos I took, huh? ?

The lure just above is Flash-J wasabi or something - can't read the color, it's in Japanese (but the word "color" is in English).  

The lure just below is YoZuri Wakebait - Gizzard shad - replaced the bronze trebles and split rings for salt.  

starting or ending the day to take advantage of it pays off

That is interesting with those lure colors. Obviously there has been much more science going into the color/patterns of those lures than many freshwater lures. That is also what I had mentioned earlier about the clear/reflective lures being most effective in any type of water (they just look the most natural as they reflect light wavelengths the same way fish scales do). And those are some great quality pictures! 

[RyanCastin]

12 hours ago, txchaser said:

@MIbassyaker 

Ok first, please make more posts like this. This is absolutely outstanding. 

Second, can you talk a little about how flake would interact in bass vision system? I'm guessing that a chart flake in white or a blue flake in black would make a bit of a spike in the level, and thus be more distinguishable than simply a color change. 

Third, how should we think about gold and silver in this context, both the colors themselves and the reflectivity?

Finally on an overcast day are the rods also working, or likely not and is still just cones. 

 

I would think that flake's role is more its reflectiveness than color itself as they are such small specks of color. These small specks are likely hard to distinguish color-wise while the light wavelengths of the water color (green-brown or clear-blue) interact with the light wavelengths of the flake's. Maybe not as much in clear/blue water (oligotrophic) but in green/brown water (eutrophic) I would think that the light wavelengths (color) of the water would make the flake color harder to distinguish and rather the reflectiveness of the flake is attractive. 

 

Another topic we must start to bring up when thinking about color perception of fish (not bass) is bioluminescence (Definition from oxford: the biochemical emission of light by living organisms such as fireflies and deep-sea fishes). This definition states that just deep-sea fish have bioluminescence, however that is simply not true. One of my biology professor's at Regis University has actually done LOTS of research on this topic in terms of all marine organisms, and he told us that there are far more marine organisms that do have bioluminescence than those that do not. You can look him up his name is Dr. Michael Ghedotti. This is obviously more in response to those in the thread that are talking about saltwater fish/lure colors and not about bass as there are not many freshwater organisms that have this remarkable adaptation. 

3 hours ago, BassWhole! said:

While I don't disagree that red, orange and pink can be great colors in low light conditions, I think the  "flashlight through the hand" hypothesis is a stretch.

Agreed, red light simply just penetrates further into the water at low light angles. It does not penetrate very deep into the water mid-day.

[Whatever]

Okay,

let me just say that I am already getting a headache, as I struggle to adapt and incorporate all this excellent info into my "spring offensive" against the local bass population.

But I want to send out a great big Thank You! to you gents, for taking the time and effort to share this excellent insight with your fellow anglers. It is just such discussions as this that make fishing such a fascinating pursuit, and I am grateful for your assistance! You have significantly advanced my understanding of the topic, based on this discussion! Thanks, Guys!

[bulldog1935]

1 hour ago, RyanCastin said:

...That is interesting with those lure colors. Obviously there has been much more science going into the color/patterns of those lures than many freshwater lures. That is also what I had mentioned earlier about the clear/reflective lures being most effective in any type of water (they just look the most natural as they reflect light wavelengths the same way fish scales do). And those are some great quality pictures! 

It's very easy for them to take a piece of pink mylar, plasma-deposit a thin reflective metal layer (of course they buy the mylar foil in rolls), fold it and cast plastic around it.  

 

I got the back-light for the transmitted light photo using a bicycle headlight and a milk jug.  The jig head was held in a modeling vise.  

[Sam]

Good information. Thanks for sharing.

 

In his book, Knowing Bass, The Scientific Approach to Catching More Fish, by Dr. Keith Jones of Berkley research department before he retired, his chapter 5 on Vision discusses what his scientific experiments noted regarding bass.

 

Dr. Jones created a chart shown on page 181 of the "Strike Response to Color" and the results from his studies are illustrated below from highest to lowest:

Silver/Black Back

Black

Dark Violet

Light Blue (Carolina Blue)

Green

White

Yellow

Orange

Red

 

Dr. Jones expanded his experiments with lure shapes and sizes and attacks on Spinnerbait Blades and Skirts which gives us the following:

Attacks on Spinnerbait Blades are 10% of total attacks.

Attacks on Spinnerbait Skirts is 90% of the total attacks.

 

I am sure you have seen Dr. Jones' studies and hopefully you have his book.

 

Thanks for opening up this thread. 

[Luke Barnes]

Ive thought no matter the water clarity of I mimic the colors and patterns of what they naturally eat I stand a good chance of getting bit. They find and eat them to stay alive even if the water is total mud or gin clear. If they didnt they would all die off because they couldnt locate baitfish. So sometimes i disregard water clarity and what i normally would throw and use what looks most realistic. 

[RyanCastin]

4 hours ago, Luke Barnes said:

Ive thought no matter the water clarity of I mimic the colors and patterns of what they naturally eat I stand a good chance of getting bit. They find and eat them to stay alive even if the water is total mud or gin clear. If they didnt they would all die off because they couldnt locate baitfish. So sometimes i disregard water clarity and what i normally would throw and use what looks most realistic. 

You obviously didnt read the thread. We have been talking about how water color in eutrophic (green/brown water) and oligotrophic (clear/blue water) lakes affects the perception of color.

4 hours ago, Luke Barnes said:

Ive thought no matter the water clarity of I mimic the colors and patterns of what they naturally eat I stand a good chance of getting bit. They find and eat them to stay alive even if the water is total mud or gin clear. If they didnt they would all die off because they couldnt locate baitfish. So sometimes i disregard water clarity and what i normally would throw and use what looks most realistic. 

Along with this, we have been talking about how the angle of light/time of day effects color. In example, red wavelengths do not penetrate deep into the water at mid-day but do penetrate further at low-light angles. This means that your red lure does not appear red (it appears black) in deeper water if the sun is at mid-day or high light hours. The natural color of baitfish is nearly impossible to "match" as their natural color is not painted and the different water types eutrophic/oligotrophic change the perception of color at different depths. Also, the natural color of baitfish is enhanced by its reflectivity of the scales of the fish. Read the thread.

[dgkasper58]

Love the thoughts of vegetation.  I am seriously clueless... To the fact that I just say weeds... I would love to learn more but so many look the same.  Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions?

 

Midwest weeds first

[Luke Barnes]

3 hours ago, RyanCastin said:

You obviously didnt read the thread. We have been talking about how water color in eutrophic (green/brown water) and oligotrophic (clear/blue water) lakes affects the perception of color.

Along with this, we have been talking about how the angle of light/time of day effects color. In example, red wavelengths do not penetrate deep into the water at mid-day but do penetrate further at low-light angles. This means that your red lure does not appear red (it appears black) in deeper water if the sun is at mid-day or high light hours. The natural color of baitfish is nearly impossible to "match" as their natural color is not painted and the different water types eutrophic/oligotrophic change the perception of color at different depths. Also, the natural color of baitfish is enhanced by its reflectivity of the scales of the fish. Read the thread.

Actually..... I did read the thread. All of it. Im just giving my 2 cents on what colors I pick because I dont really care about the science of rods and cones and light angle and all that. Shad arent black and blue but bass manage to find them in deep muddy water otherwise they would die. Swap bluegill or craw or minnow for shad and same principal. Im with @WRB who the heck actually knows what a bass' brain interprets color at any depth and light and clarity. 

 

So obviously you didnt see my point in my previous post. 

 

Add some Lumapearl if you want that reflective sheen that a fish has.

[RyanCastin]

1 hour ago, dgkasper58 said:

Love the thoughts of vegetation.  I am seriously clueless... To the fact that I just say weeds... I would love to learn more but so many look the same.  Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions?

 

Midwest weeds first

There is a lot to go over on this topic... Start with this link for aquatic vegetation in Colorado!

http://www.cowyafs.org/wp-content/themes/cowyafs/AquaticPlants/AquaticPlants_AFS_20120326.pdf

40 minutes ago, Luke Barnes said:

Actually..... I did read the thread. All of it. Im just giving my 2 cents on what colors I pick because I dont really care about the science of rods and cones and light angle and all that. Shad arent black and blue but bass manage to find them in deep muddy water otherwise they would die. Swap bluegill or craw or minnow for shad and same principal. Im with @WRB who the heck actually knows what a bass' brain interprets color at any depth and light and clarity. 

 

So obviously you didnt see my point in my previous post. 

 

Add some Lumapearl if you want that reflective sheen that a fish has.

Okay I get that but we are discussing scientific information not throwing out our best guesses.

[Luke Barnes]

24 minutes ago, RyanCastin said:

There is a lot to go over on this topic... Start with this link for aquatic vegetation in Colorado!

http://www.cowyafs.org/wp-content/themes/cowyafs/AquaticPlants/AquaticPlants_AFS_20120326.pdf

Okay I get that but we are discussing scientific information not throwing out our best guesses.

Ok science guy, have fun theorizing. I'll just go fishing and catch bass regardless of mercury being in retrograde and the oligotrophic nature of the body of water I am on.