Multivariate female preference tests reveal latent perceptual biases

Abstract

The question of why males of many species produce elaborate mating displays has now been largely resolved: females prefer to mate with males that produce such displays. However, the question of why females prefer such displays has been controversial, with an emerging consensus that such displays often provide information to females about the direct fitness benefits that males provide to females and/or the indirect fitness benefits provided to offspring. Alternative explanations, such as production of arbitrarily attractive sons or innate pre-existing female sensory or perceptual bias, have also received support in certain taxa. Here, we describe multivariate female preference functions for male acoustic traits in two chirping species of field crickets with slow pulse rates; our data reveal cryptic female preferences for long trills that have not previously been observed in other chirping species. The trill preferences are evolutionarily pre-existing in the sense that males have not (yet?) exploited them, and they coexist with chirp preferences as alternative stable states within female song preference space. We discuss escape from neuronal adaptation as a possible mechanism underlying such latent preferences.

Male mate choice via cuticular hydrocarbon pheromones drives reproductive isolation betweenDrosophilaspecies

“…Preexisting preference for a novel secondary sex characteristic has been described in other insects (Gray et al. ). With respect to differences in female CHCs, the evolution of the precise enzymes involved in the divergence of female‐specific 7,11‐HD expression is well described (Chertemps et al.…”

“…Upon secondary contact, females of one species evolve a novel signal that exploits these preexisting biases, thereby minimizing the female costs associated with heterospecific courtship and/or mating. Preexisting preference for a novel secondary sex characteristic has been described in other insects (Gray et al 2016). With respect to differences in female CHCs, the evolution of the precise enzymes involved in the divergence of female-specific 7,11-HD expression is well described (Chertemps et al 2006;Chertemps et al 2007), with one enzyme in particular, desatF, showing a dynamic evolutionary history of gains and losses (Shirangi et al 2009).…”

A small, computationally flexible network produces the phenotypic diversity of song recognition in crickets

“…The model thus provides testable hypotheses for how response properties in the neuronal network may have evolved to compute the preference functions of different species. For instance, species that prefer either shorter or longer pulse periods than G. bimaculatus like Teleogryllus leo (Rothbart and Hennig, 2012a), G. locorojo (Rothbart and Hennig, 2012b), G. firmus (Gray et al, 2016), or T. oceanicus (Hennig, 2003) could differ in the delays of inputs to LN3 (Fig. 5B).…”

“…The diverse song preferences have been extensively mapped in multiple species (e.g. (Bailey et al, 2017;Cros and Hedwig, 2014;Gray et al, 2016;Hennig, 2003;2009;Hennig et al, 2016;Rothbart and Hennig, 2012a;2012b)) and the song recognition network for one particular species is known . The computation performed by this system -the evaluation of a repetitive pulse pattern -is a common denominator of many communication systems from insects to fish and frogs (Baker et al, 2019;Carlson and Gallant, 2013;Gerhardt and Huber, 2002).…”

Describing mate preference functions and other function‐valued traits

“…Too narrow a range may underestimate the amount of variation in the attractiveness of displaysit may not capture the full shape of the preference, which might yield misleading expectations about the form of sexual selection due to mate choice. On the other hand, an excessively broad range may detract from biological interpretability, although even then it might reveal hidden preferences or supernormal responses (Arak & Enquist, 1993;Gray et al, 2016). This is a decision that researchers have to make according to the biology of their study species and the scope of their research questions.…”