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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (124.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Arak A., Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 29;349(1330):337–344. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1995.0122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- BLAIR W. F. ISOLATING MECHANISMS AND INTERSPECIES INTERACTIONS IN ANURAN AMPHIBIANS. Q Rev Biol. 1964 Dec;39:334–344. doi: 10.1086/404324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Enquist M., Arak A. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 1993 Feb 4;361(6411):446–448. doi: 10.1038/361446a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Enquist M., Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):169–172. doi: 10.1038/372169a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghirlanda S, Enquist M. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control. Anim Behav. 1998 Dec;56(6):1383–1389. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grafen A. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):473–516. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80087-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Phelps S. M., Ryan M. J. Neural networks predict response biases of female túngara frogs. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 22;265(1393):279–285. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan M. J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science. 1998 Sep 25;281(5385):1999–2003. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5385.1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]