Literature DB >> 12350263

The evolution of signal form: effects of learned versus inherited recognition.

Masashi Kamo1, Stefano Ghirlanda, Magnus Enquist.   

Abstract

Organisms can learn by individual experience to recognize relevant stimuli in the environment or they can genetically inherit this ability from their parents. Here, we ask how these two modes of acquisition affect signal evolution, focusing in particular on the exaggeration and cost of signals. We argue first, that faster learning by individual receivers cannot be a driving force for the evolution of exaggerated and costly signals unless signal senders are related or the same receiver and sender meet repeatedly. We argue instead that biases in receivers' recognition mechanisms can promote the evolution of costly exaggeration in signals. We provide support for this hypothesis by simulating coevolution between senders and receivers, using artificial neural networks as a model of receivers' recognition mechanisms. We analyse the joint effects of receiver biases, signal cost and mode of acquisition, investigating the circumstances under which learned recognition gives rise to more exaggerated signals than inherited recognition. We conclude the paper by discussing the relevance of our results to a number of biological scenarios.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12350263      PMCID: PMC1691102          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  10 in total

1.  ISOLATING MECHANISMS AND INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS IN ANURAN AMPHIBIANS.

Authors:  W F BLAIR
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  1964-12       Impact factor: 4.875

2.  Mate selection-a selection for a handicap.

Authors:  A Zahavi
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.691

3.  Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process.

Authors:  A Grafen
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1990-06-21       Impact factor: 2.691

Review 4.  Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences.

Authors:  M J Ryan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-09-25       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses.

Authors:  M Enquist; A Arak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1993-02-04       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form.

Authors:  A Arak; M Enquist
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1995-09-29       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I.

Authors:  W D Hamilton
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1964-07       Impact factor: 2.691

9.  Neural networks predict response biases of female túngara frogs.

Authors:  S M Phelps; M J Ryan
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Symmetry, beauty and evolution.

Authors:  M Enquist; A Arak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1994-11-10       Impact factor: 49.962

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Advertisement-call modification, male competition and female preference in the bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca.

Authors:  Carlos César Martínez-Rivera; H Carl Gerhardt
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  The need for stochastic replication of ecological neural networks.

Authors:  Colin R Tosh; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 6.237

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.