Multiple sexual ornaments: Difference between revisions
added doi |
m added pdf Tag: possible conflict of interest |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===Sexual Interference Hypothesis=== |
===Sexual Interference Hypothesis=== |
||
The sexual interference hypothesis <ref>Lozano, G. A. 2009. Multiple cues in mate selection: the sexual interference hypothesis. BioScience Hypotheses 2: 37-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bihy.2008.09.001 </ref> proposes that additional male signals evolve as a way for males to hinder female mate choice by interfering with the propagation and reception of other males’ sexual signals. Females respond by evolving the ability to glean meaningful information from signals despite males’ attempts at obfuscation. In turn, males respond by producing better interference signals and signals that are not so easily blocked. This process increases the costs of assessment for females and the costs of signal production for males, and leads to a temporary equilibrium of honest advertising via multiple signals. This hypothesis remains untested. |
The sexual interference hypothesis <ref>Lozano, G. A. 2009. Multiple cues in mate selection: the sexual interference hypothesis. BioScience Hypotheses 2: 37-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bihy.2008.09.001 [http://www.georgealozano.com/papers/mine/Lozano2009Multiple.pdf]</ref> proposes that additional male signals evolve as a way for males to hinder female mate choice by interfering with the propagation and reception of other males’ sexual signals. Females respond by evolving the ability to glean meaningful information from signals despite males’ attempts at obfuscation. In turn, males respond by producing better interference signals and signals that are not so easily blocked. This process increases the costs of assessment for females and the costs of signal production for males, and leads to a temporary equilibrium of honest advertising via multiple signals. This hypothesis remains untested. |
||
==References== |
|||
==References==<!-- BiolJLinnSoc96:372. --> |
|||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
Revision as of 19:50, 28 January 2010
Many species have multiple sexual ornaments, that is, females select mating partners using several cues instead of only one cue. Whereas this phenomenon is self-evident and hence long recognized by biologists, adaptive explanations of why females use several instead of only one cue have been formulated relatively recently. Several hypotheses exist, but mutually exclusive tests are still lacking.
Hypotheses
There are several hypotheses that attempt to explain why a male would have multiple sexual ornaments.
Multiple messages hypothesis
The multiple message hypothesis [1] states that different ornaments signal different properties of an individual's overall quality. Models support the possibility that this hypothesis might be evolutionary stable [2].
Some ornaments represent long-term or short-term changes in overall condition. Elegant plumes in a bird or antlers in a deer grown once a year could signal the overall condition of an animal during long the period of growth; this is thus an example of a long-term change [3]. Secondary characters like the inflatable bare patches of skin on a grouse species or the colorful patches of skin in a primate species could represent short-term changes [4].
Redundant signals hypothesis
The redundant signal hypothesis [5] states that each character can only best show partial representation of overall condition. If each ornament reflected the male's quality with a certain error, then mate choice based on a single trait would lead a female to select a male in poor condition rather than one in great condition.Thus, a female ought to look at multiple sexual traits of a male if she wants to get an overall view of the male's quality. There has been some empirical support of this hypothesis [6].
Unreliable signals hypothesis
The unreliable signal hypothesis [7] suggests that some signals are unreliable indicators of overall male quality.Therefore a female should look at multiple traits because one trait could be misleading; it could be cheaper to produce in terms of energy usage. There is some support for this hypothesis [8].
Sexual Interference Hypothesis
The sexual interference hypothesis [9] proposes that additional male signals evolve as a way for males to hinder female mate choice by interfering with the propagation and reception of other males’ sexual signals. Females respond by evolving the ability to glean meaningful information from signals despite males’ attempts at obfuscation. In turn, males respond by producing better interference signals and signals that are not so easily blocked. This process increases the costs of assessment for females and the costs of signal production for males, and leads to a temporary equilibrium of honest advertising via multiple signals. This hypothesis remains untested.
References
- ^ Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankoski. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 32:167-176.
- ^ Johnstone, Rufus A. (1996), "Multiple Displays in animal communication: 'backup signals' and 'multiple messages.'", Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 351 (1337): 329–338, doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0026.
- ^ Moller, A. P.; Pomiankowski, Andrew (1993), "Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments?", Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32 (3): 167–176, doi:10.1007/BF00173774.
- ^ Changizi, Mark A.; Zhang, Qiong; Shimojo, Shinsuke (2006), "Bare skin, blood, and evolution of primate colour vision", Biology Letters, 2 (2): 217–221, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0440.
- ^ Zuk, M., J. D. Ligon, and R. Thornhill. 1992. Effects of experimental manipulations of male secondary sex characters on mate preference in red jungle fowl. Animal Behavior 44:999-1006.
- ^ Jawor, Jodie M.; Breitwisch, Randall (2004), "Multiple Ornaments in male northern cardinals, Cardinalis Cardinalis, as indicators of condition", Ethology, 110 (2): 113–126, doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2003.00962.x.
- ^ Møller, A. P., and A. Pomiankoski. 1993. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 32:167-176.
- ^ Omland, K. E. (1996), "Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments", Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39 (6): 353–360, doi:10.1007/s002650050301.
- ^ Lozano, G. A. 2009. Multiple cues in mate selection: the sexual interference hypothesis. BioScience Hypotheses 2: 37-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bihy.2008.09.001 [1]