Ornate plumage of male red junglefowl does not influence mate choice by females

Ligon, J. David; Zwartjes, Patrick W.

doi:10.1016/0003-3472(95)80159-6

Cited by 72 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Manakin trait repertoire is very diverse, composed of multiple, hierarchically distributed traits that have evolved independently at various times in the history of manakin lineages, which supports an unconstrained evolutionary process. Moreover, a few empirical studies have found traits that are less important in mate choice to occur beside a single decisive trait, which suggests that they could be Fisherian or uninformative cues (Zuk et al, 1990;Ligon & Zwartjes, 1995;Omland, 1996a, b).…”

Section: (4) Unreliable and Fisherian Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far there is no reliable evidence for multiple sexual cues evolving as a result of antagonistic coevolution. However, evidence exists for sexual conflict over mating rate (Rice, 1996;Arnqvist & Danielsson, 1999;Pitnick, Brown & Miller, 2001), for females evolving reduced attraction to traits that stimulate them to mate in a suboptimal manner (reviewed by Holland & Rice, 1998), and for females showing no preference for some ornaments in highly ornamental bird species (Møller & Pomiankowski, 1993;Ligon & Zwartjes, 1995). Thus, it appears likely that sexual cues could evolve that increase male fitness at the expense of their mates, resulting in males with time becoming adorned with multiple uninformative, threshold cues.…”

Section: (7) Intersexual Conflict and Antagonistic Coevolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of multiple cues in mate choice

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of studies find females to base their mate choice on several cues. Why this occurs is debated and many different hypotheses have been proposed. Here I review the hypotheses and the evidence in favour of them. At the same time I provide a new categorisation based on the adaptiveness of the preferences and the information content of the cues. A few comparative and empirical studies suggest that most multiple cues are Fisherian attractiveness cues or uninformative cues that occur alongside a viability indicator and facilitate detection, improve signal reception, or are remnants from past selection pressures. However, much evidence exists for multiple cues providing additional information and serving as multiple messages that either indicate general mate quality or enable females that differ in mate preferences to choose the most suitable male. Less evidence exists for multiple cues serving as back-up signals. The importance of receiver psychology, multiple sensory environments and signal interaction in the evolution of multiple cues and preferences has received surprisingly little attention but may be of crucial importance. Similarly, sexual conflict has been proposed to result in maladaptive preferences for manipulative cues, and in neutral preferences for threshold cues, but no reliable evidence exists so far. An important factor in the evolution of multiple preferences is the cost of using additional cues. Most theoretical work assumes that the cost of choice increases with the number of cues used, which restricts the conditions under which preferences for multiple cues are expected to evolve. I suggest that in contrast to this expectation, the use of multiple cues can reduce mate choice costs by decreasing the number of mates inspected more closely or the time and energy spent inspecting a set of mates. This may be one explanation for why multiple cues are more common than usually expected. Finally I discuss the consequences that the use of multiple cues may have for the process of sexual selection, the maintenance of genetic variation, and speciation.

show abstract

Section: (4) Unreliable and Fisherian Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (7) Intersexual Conflict and Antagonistic Coevolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of multiple cues in mate choice

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this attention has generated a large body of information relating to signal design and evolution, much of the previous research has examined individual signals in isolation and has often focused on sensory specialists (animals that rely predominantly on one sensory modality) [e.g., vision: (Andersson 1982;Bischoff et al 1985;Basolo 1990;Petrie et al 1991;Brooks and Caithness 1995;Ligon and Zwartjes 1995); acoustics: (Wells 1977;Ryan 1980;Ryan 1985;Bailey et al 1990;Ryan and Rand 1990;Gerhardt 1991)]. As we understand more about communication in various systems, we are increasingly confronted with the fact that signaling generally involves complex behavioral routines, incorporating more than one signal or related component, often serially and overlapping, frequently across multiple sensory modalities (Hughes 1996;Borgia and Presgraves 1998;Møller and Thornhill 1998;Hebets and Uetz 1999;Hölldobler 1999;Partan and Marler 1999;Rowe 1999;Rowe and Guilford 1999a;Rowe and Guilford 1999b;Rowe 2002;Uetz and Roberts 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses

Hebets

Papaj

2004

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

851

868

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basic building blocks of communication are signals, assembled in various sequences and combinations, and used in virtually all inter-and intra-specific interactions. While signal evolution has long been a focus of study, there has been a recent resurgence of interest and research in the complexity of animal displays. Much past research on signal evolution has focused on sensory specialists, or on single signals in isolation, but many animal displays involve complex signaling, or the combination of more than one signal or related component, often serially and overlapping, frequently across multiple sensory modalities. Here, we build a framework of functional hypotheses of complex signal evolution based on content-driven (ultimate) and efficacy-driven (proximate) selection pressures (sensu Guilford and Dawkins 1991). We point out key predictions for various hypotheses and discuss different approaches to uncovering complex signal function. We also differentiate a category of hypotheses based on inter-signal interactions. Throughout our review, we hope to make three points: (1) a complex signal is a functional unit upon which selection can act, (2) both content and efficacy-driven selection pressures must be considered when studying the evolution of complex signaling, and (3) individual signals or components do not necessarily contribute to complex signal function independently, but may interact in a functional way.

show abstract

“…Among the many possible explanations for the evolution of ornaments (Andersson 1994), the idea of female choice has received the most support (Bischoff et al 1985;Basolo 1990;Brooks and Caithness 1995;Ligon and Zwartjes 1995;Wiernasz 1995). Numerous studies have shown that females exhibit a preference among males, but the origin of these preferences remains unclear (Bateson 1983;Andersson 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%