Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 380-387

  ten Cate, Carel ^a   Rowe, Candy ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; LEARNING; SENSORY SYSTEM; SIGNALING;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; EVOLUTION; HUMAN; LEARNING; REVIEW;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; HUMANS; LEARNING;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 34250327184     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.006     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Zahavi A. Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53 (1975) 205-214
2. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144 (1990) 517-546
3. Andersson M. Sexual Selection (1994), Princeton University Press
4. Searcy W.A., and Nowicki S. The Evolution of Communication (2005), Princeton University Press
5. Ryan M.J., et al. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343 (1990) 66-67
6. Ryan M.J., and Rand A.S. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 340 (1993) 187-195
7. Basolo A.L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in female swordtail fish. Science 250 (1990) 808-810
8. Basolo A.L. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B 259 (1995) 307-311
9. Endler J.A., and Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 415-420
10. Ryan M.J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281 (1998) 1999-2003
11. Proctor H.C. Courtship in the water mite Neumania-papillator - males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim. Behav. 42 (1991) 589-598
12. Proctor H.C. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating-behavior - a cladistic test using water mites (Acari, Parasitengona). Anim. Behav. 44 (1993) 745-752
13. Smith C., et al. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. B 271 (2004) 949-955
14. Maan M.E., et al. Sensory drive in cichlid speciation. Am. Nat. 167 (2006) 947-954
15. Guilford T., and Dawkins M.S. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42 (1991) 1-14
16. Guilford T.C., and Dawkins M.S. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci. 16 (1993) 430-436
17. Staddon J.E.R. A note on the evolutionary significance of 'supernormal' stimuli. Am. Nat. 109 (1975) 541-545
18. Enquist M., and Arak A. Neural representation and the evolution of signal form. In: Dukas R. (Ed). Cognitive Ecology (1998), University of Chicago Press 21-87
19. Enquist M., and Ghirlanda S. Neural Networks and Animal Behavior (2005), Princeton University Press
20. Rowe C., and Skelhorn J. Avian psychology and communication. Proc. R. Soc. B 271 (2004) 1435-1442
21. ten Cate C., et al. Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Curr. Biol. 16 (2006) 1128-1132
22. Lynn S.K. Learning to avoid aposematic prey. Anim. Behav. 70 (2005) 1121-1226
23. Lynn S.K. Cognition and evolution: learning and the evolution of sex traits. Curr. Biol. 16 (2006) R421-R423
24. Bateson M., and Healy S.D. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (2005) 659-664
25. Chittka L., and Raine N.E. Recognition of flowers by pollinators. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 9 (2006) 428-435
26. Purtle R.B. Peak shift: a review. Psychol. Bull. 80 (1973) 408-421
27. Ghirlanda S., and Enquist M. A century of generalization. Anim. Behav. 66 (2003) 15-36
28. Guilford T. Predator psychology and the evolution of prey coloration. In: Crawley M.J. (Ed). Natural Enemies: The Population Biology of Predators, Parasites and Diseases (1990), Blackwell Scientific 377-494
29. Riebel K. The 'mute' sex revisited; vocal production and perception learning in female songbirds. Adv. Stud. Behav. 33 (2003) 49-86
30. Lynn S.K., et al. Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution 59 (2005) 1300-1305
31. Mackintosh N.J. Conditioning and Associative Learning (1983), Clarendon Press
32. Mackintosh N.J. Categorization by people and pigeons: the twenty-second Bartlett memorial lecture. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. B 48 (1995) 193-214
33. Cheng K. Generalisation: mechanistic and functional explanations. Anim. Cogn. 5 (2002) 33-40
34. Thomas D.R., et al. Peak shift revisited: a test of alternative interpretations. J. Exp. Psychol. 17 (1991) 130-140
35. Spetch M.L., et al. Peak shift but not range effects in recognition of faces. Learn. Motiv. 35 (2004) 221-241
36. Lewis M.B., and Johnston R.A. Are caricatures special? Evidence of peak shift in face recognition. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 11 (1999) 105-117
37. Cheng K., et al. Spatial peak shift and generalization in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 23 (1997) 469-481
38. Cheng K., et al. Small-scale spatial orientation in pigeons. Behav. Process. 72 (2006) 115-127
39. Daly K.C., et al. The generalization of an olfactory-based conditioned response reveals unique but overlapping odour representations in the moth Manduca sexta. J. Exp. Biol. 204 (2001) 3085-3095
40. Weary D.M., et al. A product of discrimination learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate males. Evolution 47 (1993) 333-336
41. Gamberale G., and Tullberg B.S. Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. B. 263 (1996) 1329-1334
42. Gamberale-Stille G., and Tullberg B.S. Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live aposematic prey. Evol. Ecol. 13 (1999) 579-589
43. Leimar O., et al. Evolutionary stability of aposematic colouration and prey unprofitability: a theoretical analysis. Am. Nat. 128 (1986) 469-490
44. Yachi S., and Higashi M. The evolution of warning signals. Nature 394 (1998) 882-884
45. Leimar O., and Tuomi J. Synergistic selection and graded traits. Evol. Ecol. 12 (1998) 59-71
46. Verzijden M.N., et al. Song discrimination learning in zebra finches induces highly divergent responses to novel songs. Proc. R. Soc. B 274 (2007) 295-301
47. Madden J.R., and Tanner K. Preferences for coloured bower decorations can be explained in a nonsexual context. Anim. Behav. 65 (2003) 1077-1083
48. Laland K. On the evolutionary consequences of sexual imprinting. Evolution 48 (1994) 477-489
49. ten Cate C. How learning mechanisms might affect evolutionary processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000) 179-181
50. Kamo M., et al. The evolution of signal form: effects of learned versus inherited recognition. Proc. R. Soc. B 269 (2002) 1765-1771
51. Aoki K., et al. Models of sexual selection on a quantitative genetic trait when preference is acquired by sexual imprinting. Evolution 55 (2001) 25-32
52. Ellers J., and Slabbekoorn H. Song divergence and male dispersal among bird populations: a spatially explicit model testing the role of vocal learning. Anim. Behav. 65 (2003) 671-681
53. Beltman J.B., et al. Learning and the colonization of new niches: a first step towards speciation. Evolution 58 (2004) 35-46
54. Lachlan R.F., and Servedio M.R. Song learning accelerates allopatric speciation. Evolution 58 (2004) 2049-2063
55. Verzijden M.N., et al. Female mate-choice behavior and sympatric speciation. Evolution 59 (2005) 2079-2108
56. Moretz J.A., and Morris M.R. Phylogenetic analysis of a signal of aggressive intent in northern swordtail fishes. Am Nat 168 (2006) 336-349
57. Jansson L., and Enquist M. Receiver biases for colourful signals. Anim. Behav. 66 (2003) 965-971
58. Jansson L., and Enquist M. Testing the receiver bias hypothesis empirically with 'virtual evolution'. Anim. Behav. 70 (2005) 865-875
59. Wills S., and Mackintosh N.J. Peak shift on an artificial dimension. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. B 51 (1998) 1-31
60. McLaren I.P.L., and Mackintosh N.J. Associative learning and elemental stimulus representation: II. Generalization and discrimination. Anim. Learn. Behav. 30 (2002) 177-200
61. Spence K. The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychol. Rev. 44 (1937) 430-444
62. Blough D.S. Steady state data and a quantitative model of operant generalization and discrimination. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Proc. 1 (1975) 3-21
63. ten Cate C., and Vos D.R. Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv. Study Behav. 28 (1999) 1-31
64. Vos D.R. Sex recognition in zebra finch males results from early experience. Behaviour 128 (1994) 1-14
65. Vos D.R. The role of sexual imprinting for sex recognition in zebra finches: a difference between males and females. Anim. Behav. 50 (1995) 645-653
66. Kendrick K.M., et al. Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature 395 (1998) 229-230
67. Verzijden M.N., and ten Cate C. Early learning influences species assortative mating preferences in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol. Lett. 3 (2007) 134-136
68. Noor M.A.F. Reinforcement and other consequences of sympatry. Heredity 83 (1999) 503-508
69. Pfennig K.S. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate recognition. Proc. R. Soc. B 265 (1998) 1743-1748
70. Irwin D.E., and Price T. Sexual imprinting, learning and speciation. Heredity 82 (1999) 347-354