Perceptual biases and mate choice

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volumn 44, Issue , 2013, Pages 437-459

  Ryan, Michael J ^a,b   Cummings, Molly E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Receiver biases; Sensory drive; Sensory exploitation; Sensory traps; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; EXPLOITATION; MATE CHOICE; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SENSORY SYSTEM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

EID: 84888616907     PISSN: 1543592X     EISSN: 15452069     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135901     Document Type: Review

References (143)

1. Akre KL, Farris HE, Lea AM, Page RA, Ryan MJ. 2011. Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals. Science 333:751-52
2. Akre KL, Ryan MJ. 2010. Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Curr. Biol. 20:502-5
3. Andersson M. 1982. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818-20
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
5. Andersson M, Simmons L. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:296-302
6. Arnqvist G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 361:375-86
7. Arnqvist G, Kolm N. 2010. Population differentiation in the swordtail characin (Corynopoma riisei): a role for sensory drive? J. Evol. Biol. 23:1907-18
8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
9. Basolo AL. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-10
10. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A. 2008. Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58:385-99
11. Bernal XE, Akre KL, Baugh AT, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2009. Female and male behavioral response to advertisement calls of graded complexity in túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63:1269-79
12. Boughman JW. 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944-48
13. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 1998. Principles of Animal Communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
14. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL. 2000. Economic models of animal communication. Anim. Behav. 59:259-68
15. Bro-Jørgensen J, Pangle WM. 2010. Male topi antelopes alarm snort deceptively to retain females for mating. Am. Nat. 176:E33-39
16. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussière LF, Jennions MD. 2005. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871-80
17. Burley NT, Symanski R. 1998. "A taste for the beautiful": latent aesthetic mate preferences for white crests in two species of Australian grassfinches. Am. Nat. 152:792-802
18. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B. 2002. Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:14897-902
19. Capranica RR. 1983. Sensory processing of key stimuli. In Advances in Vertebrate Neuroethology, ed. JP Ewert, RR Capranica, DJ Ingle, pp. 701-30. New York: Plenum
20. Carleton KL, Parry JWL, Bowmaker JK, Hunt DM, Seehausen O. 2005. Colour vision and speciation in Lake Victoria cichlids of the genus Pundamilia. Mol. Ecol. 14:4341-53
21. Castellano S, Rosso A. 2007. Female preferences for multiple attributes in the acoustic signals of the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61:1293-302
22. Chittka L. 1992. The colour hexagon: a chromaticity diagram based on photoreceptor excitations as a generalized representation of colour opponency. J. Comp. Physiol. A 170:533-43
23. Chittka L, Brockmann A. 2005. Perception space-the final frontier. PLoS Biol. 3:e137
24. Chittka L, Raine NE. 2006. Recognition of flowers by pollinators. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 9:428-35
25. Christy JH. 1988. Pillar function in the fiddler crab Uca beebei (II): competitive courtship signaling. Ethology 78:113-28
26. Christy JH. 1995. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am. Nat. 146:171-81
27. Christy JH, Backwell PRY, Goshima S, Kreuter T. 2002. Sexual selection for structure building by courting male fiddler crabs: an experimental study of behavioral mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 13:366-74
28. Christy JH, Salmon M. 1991. Comparative studies of reproductive behavior in mantis shrimps and fiddler crabs. Am. Zool. 31:329-37
29. Clayton DF. 1997. Role of gene regulation in song circuit development and song learning. J. Neurobiol. 33:549-71
30. Cohen JA. 1984. Sexual selection and the psychophysics of female choice. Z. Tierpsychol. 64:1-8
31. Conner WE. 1987. Ultrasound: its role in the courtship of the arctiid moth, Cycnia tenera. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 43:1029-31
32. Córdoba-Aguilar A. 1999. Male copulatory sensory stimulation induces female ejection of rival sperm in a damselfly. Proc. R. Soc. B 266:779-84
33. Có rdoba-Aguilar A. 2002. Sensory trap as the mechanism of sexual selection in a damselfly genitalic trait (Insecta: Calopterygidae). Am. Nat. 160:594-601
34. Cronin H. 1991. The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
35. Crothers L, Cummings ME. 2013. Warning signal brightness variation: sexual selection may work under the radar of natural selection in populations of a polytypic poison frog. Am. Nat. 181(5):E1-9
36. Cummings ME. 2004. Modelling divergence in luminance and chromatic detection performances across measured divergence in surfperch (Embiotocidae) habitats. Vis. Res. 44:1127-45
37. Cummings ME. 2007. Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:530-45
38. Cummings ME. 2012. Looking for sexual selection in the female brain. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367:2348-56
39. Cummings ME, Crothers LC. 2013. Interacting selection diversifies warning signals in a polytypic frog: an examination with the strawberry poison frog. Evol. Ecol. 27:693-710
40. Cummings ME, Partridge J. 2001. Visual pigments and optical habitats of surfperch (Embiotocidae) in the California kelp forest. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187:875-89
41. Cummings ME, Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ. 2003. A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc. R. Soc. B 270:897-904
42. Darwin C. 1860. Darwin Correspondence Project, letter 2743, Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 3 April. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/
43. Darwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray
44. Darwin C. 1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: Murray
45. Dawkins MS, Guilford T. 1996. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am. Nat. 148:937-42
46. Dong S, Clayton DF. 2009. Habituation in songbirds. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 92:183-88
47. Dusenbery DB. 1992. Sensory Ecology: How Organisms Acquire and Respond to Information. New York: Freeman
48. Eda-Fujiwara H, Satoh R, Miyamoto T. 2006. Song preferences by females: male song complexity and gene expression in the female brain. Ornithol. Sci. 5:23-29
49. Emlen DJ. 2008. The evolution of animal weapons. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39:387-413
50. Endler JA. 1978. A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evol. Biol. 11:319-64
51. Endler JA, Basolo AL. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:415-20
52. Endler JA, Endler LC, Doerr NR. 2010. Great bowerbirds create theaters with forced perspective when seen by their audience. Curr. Biol. 20:1679-84
53. Endler JA, Greenwood JJD. 1988. Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration [and discussion]. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 319:505-23
54. Endler JA, Mappes J. 2004. Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Am. Nat. 163:532-47
55. Endler JA, McLellan T. 1988. The processes of evolution: towards a newer synthesis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:395-421
56. Endler JA, Mielke PWJr. 2005. Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86:405-31
57. Endler JA, Westcott DA, Madden JR, Robson T. 2005. Animal visual systems and the evolution of color patterns: sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59:1795-818
58. Enquist M, Arak A. 1993. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361:446-48
59. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu C-H, Lin W-Y, Qiu Q, et al. 2006. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333-36
60. Fullard JH. 1977. Phenology of sound-producing arctiid moths and the activity of insectivorous bats. Nature 267:42-43
61. Fuller RC. 2002. Lighting environment predicts the relative abundance of male colour morphs in bluefin killifish (Lucania goodei) populations. Proc. R. Soc. B 269:1457-65
62. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166:437-46
63. Garcia CM, Lemus YS. 2012. Foraging costs drive female resistance to a sensory trap. Proc. R. Soc. B 279:2262-68
64. Garcia CM, Ramirez E. 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434:501-5
65. Gerhardt HC, Brooks R. 2009. Experimental analysis of multivariate female choice in gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor): evidence for directional and stabilizing selection. Evolution 63:2504-12
66. Gerhardt HC, Tanner SD, Corrigan CM, Walton HC. 2000. Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. 11:663-69
67. Getty T. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signaling. Evolution 53:299-302
68. Ghirlanda S, Enquist M. 2003. A century of generalization. Anim. Behav. 66:15-36
69. Gomez D, Théry M. 2007. Simultaneous crypsis and conspicuousness in color patterns: comparative analysis of a neotropical rainforest bird community. Am. Nat. 169:S42-61
70. Grant BR, Grant PR. 2010. Songs of Darwin's finches diverge when a new species enters the community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107:20156-63
71. Gray DA, Hagelin JC. 1996. Song repertoires and sensory exploitation: reconsidering the case of the common grackle. Anim. Behav. 52:795-800
72. Guerrieri F, Schubert M, Sandoz JC, Giurfa M. 2005. Perceptual and neural olfactory similarity in honeybees. PLoS Biol. 3:e60
73. Guilford T, Dawkins M. 1991. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42:1-14
74. Hanson HM. 1959. Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. J. Exp. Psychol. 58:321-34
75. Hartshorne C. 1956. The monotony-threshold in singing birds. Auk 73:176-92
76. Hayden S, Bekaert M, Crider TA, Mariani S, Murphy WJ, Teeling EC. 2010. Ecological adaptation determines functional mammalian olfactory subgenomes. Genome Res. 20:1-9
77. Hoke KL, Burmeister SS, Fernald RD, Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 2004. Functional mapping of the auditory midbrain during mate call reception. J. Neurosci. 24:11264-72
78. Holland B, Rice WR. 1998. Perspective: Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7
79. Hornstein EP, O'Carroll DC, Anderson JC, Laughlin SB. 2000. Sexual dimorphism matches photoreceptor performance to behavioural requirements. Proc. R. Soc. B 267:2111-17
80. Hurd PL, Wachtmeister CA, Enquist M. 1995. Darwin's principle of antithesis revisited: a role for perceptual biases in the evolution of intraspecific signals. Proc. R. Soc. B 259:201-5
81. Jansson L, Enquist M. 2005. Testing the receiver bias hypothesis empirically with 'virtual evolution'. Anim. Behav. 70:865-75
82. Jones IL, Hunter FM. 1998. Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets. Behav. Ecol. 9:187-92
83. Kelley LA, Endler JA. 2012. Male great bowerbirds create forced perspective illusions with consistently different individual quality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109:20980-85
84. Kim TW, Christy JH, Dennenmoser S, Choe JC. 2009. The strength of a female mate preference increases with predation risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 276:775-80
85. Kirkpatrick M, Barton N. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:1282-86
86. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. B 270:653-64
87. Kolm N, Amcoff M, Mann RP, Arnqvist G. 2012. Diversification of a food-mimicking male ornament via sensory drive. Curr. Biol. 22:1440-43
88. Kotiaho J, Puurtinen M. 2007. Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct. Ecol. 21:638-44
89. Krakauer DC, Johnstone RA. 1995. The evolution of exploitation and honesty in animal communication: a model using artificial neural networks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 348:355-61
90. Kuijper B, Pen I, Weissing FJ. 2012. A guide to sexual selection theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43:287-311
91. Langemann U, Gauger B, Klump GM. 1998. Auditory perception in the great tit: perception of signals in the presence and absence of noise. Anim. Behav. 56:763-69
92. Lunau K, Papiorek S, Eltz T, Sazima M. 2011. Avoidance of achromatic colours by bees provides a private niche for hummingbirds. J. Exp. Biol. 214:1607-12
93. Lynn SK, Cnaani J, Papaj DR. 2005. Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution 59:1300-5
94. Lythgoe JN, Muntz WRA, Partridge JC, Shand J, Williams DMc B. 1994. The ecology of the visual pigments of snappers (Lutjanidae) on the Great Barrier Reef. J. Comp. Physiol. A 174:461-67
95. Lythgoe JN, Partridge JC. 1989. Visual pigments and the acquisition of visual information. J. Exp. Biol. 146:1-20
96. Maan ME, Cummings ME. 2012. Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am. Nat. 179:E1-14
97. Maan ME, Hofker KD, van Alphen JJM, Seehausen O. 2006. Sensory drive in cichlid speciation. Am. Nat. 167:947-54
98. Magnus DBE. 1958. Experimental analysis of some "overoptimal" sign-stimuli in the mating behaviour of the fritillary butterfly Argynnis paphia L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Entomol., Montreal, 2:405-18
99. McClintock WJ, Uetz GW. 1996. Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 52:167-81
100. McFarland WN, Munz FW. 1975. Part III: the evolution of photopic visual pigments in fishes. Vis. Res. 15:1071-80
101. McKinnon JS, Rundle HD. 2002. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:480-88
102. Møller A, Jennions M. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401-15
103. Morton ES. 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am. Nat. 109:17-34
104. Nakano R, Takanashi T, Skals N, Surlykke A, Ishikawa Y. 2010. Ultrasonic courtship songs of male Asian corn borer moths assist copulation attempts by making the females motionless. Physiol. Entomol. 35:76-81
105. Proctor HC. 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim. Behav. 42:589-98
106. Prum RO. 2010. The Lande-Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution 64:3085-100
107. Reeve HK, Sherman PW. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Q. Rev. Biol. 68:1-32
108. Ritchie MG. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:14628-31
109. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT. 2002. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: Are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc. R. Soc. B 269:475-81
110. Roeder KD. 1962. The behaviour of free flying moths in the presence of artificial ultrasonic pulses. Anim. Behav. 10:300-4
111. Ron SR. 2008. The evolution of female mate choice for complex calls in túngara frogs.Anim. Behav. 76:1783-94
112. Rosenthal GG, Evans CS. 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:4431-36
113. Rosenthal GG, Servedio MR. 1999. Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to "resistance". Evolution 53:296-99
114. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T. 2005. Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am. Nat. 165:S5-18
115. Ryan MJ. 1985. The Tú ngara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
116. Ryan MJ. 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:157-95
117. Ryan MJ. 1998. Receiver biases, sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999-2003
118. Ryan MJ. 2011. The brain as a source of selection on the social niche: examples from the psychophysics of mate choice in túngara frogs. Integr. Comp. Biol. 51:756-70
119. Ryan MJ, Cummings ME. 2005. Animal signals and the overlooked costs of efficacy. Evolution 59:1160-61
120. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139:S4-35
121. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Ser. B 340:187-95
122. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1998. Evoked vocal response in male túngara frogs: Preexisting biases in male responses? Anim. Behav. 56:1509-16
123. Ryan MJ, Rand W, Hurd PL, Phelps SM, Rand AS. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. Am. Nat. 161:380-94
124. Ryan MJ, Wagner WE. 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236:595-97
125. Searcy WA. 1992. Song repertoire and mate choice in birds. Am. Zool. 32:71-80
126. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes IS, Carleton KL, Mrosso HDJ, et al. 2008. Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455:620-26
127. Shannon C. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27: 379-423
128. Shaw KL, Herlihy DP. 2000. Acoustic preference functions and song variability in the Hawaiian cricket Laupala cerasina. Proc. R. Soc. B 267:577-84
129. Shine R, Langkilde T, Mason RT. 2003. Cryptic forcible insemination: male snakes exploit female physiology, anatomy, and behavior to obtain coercive matings. Am. Nat. 162:653-67
130. Smith C, Barber I, Wootton RJ, Chittka L. 2004. A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. B 271:949-55
131. Staddon J. 1975. A note on the evolutionary significance of "supernormal" stimuli. Am. Nat. 109:541-45
132. Stevens SS. 1975. Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
133. Stoddard MC, Prum RO. 2008. Evolution of avian plumage color in a tetrahedral color space: a phylogenetic analysis of new world buntings. Am. Nat. 171:755-76
134. Stuart-Fox D, Moussalli A. 2008. Selection for social signalling drives the evolution of chameleon colour change. PLoS Biol. 6:e25
135. ten Cate C, Rowe C. 2007. Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22:380-87
136. ten Cate C, Verzijden MN, Etman E. 2006. Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Curr. Biol. 16:1128-32
137. Verzijden MN, Etman E, Van Heijningen C, Van Der Linden M, ten Cate C. 2007. Song discrimination learning in zebra finches induces highly divergent responses to novel songs. Proc. R. Soc. B 274:295-301
138. Weary D, Guilford T, Weisman R. 1993. A product of discriminative learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate males. Evolution 47:333-36
139. Weisman R, Shackleton S, Ratcliffe L, Weary D, Boag P. 1994. Sexual preferences of female zebra finches: imprinting on beak colour. Behaviour 128:1-2
140. West-Eberhard MJ. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 123:222-34
141. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2001. Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav. Evol. 58:137-51
142. Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ. 1999. Geographic variation in animal communication systems. In Geographic Diversification of Behavior: An Evolutionary Perspective, ed. SA Foster, J Endler, pp. 234-61. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
143. Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W. 2005. How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Behav. Ecol. 16:571-79