Social regulation of electric signal plasticity in male Brachyhypopomus gauderio

Gavassa, Sat; Roach, James P.; Stoddard, Philip K.

doi:10.1007/s00359-013-0801-2

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Animals change the physical parameters of their signals (i.e., "signal modulation") in response to changes in environmental conditions, social interactions, or the presence of predators (50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56). Surprisingly, modulation of the physical properties of movementbased visual signals, which often are considered the most salient components of visual displays, has not been documented as a response to predation threat, despite evidence for predationassociated modulation of signals in other sensory modalities (e.g., refs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation-associated modulation of movement-based signals by a Bahamian lizard

Steinberg

Losos

Schoener

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signaling individuals must effectively capture and hold the attention of intended conspecific receivers while limiting eavesdropping by potential predators. A possible mechanism for achieving this balance is for individuals to modulate the physical properties of their signals or to alter the proportion of time spent signaling, depending upon local levels of predation pressure. We test the hypothesis that prey can alter their visual signaling behavior to decrease conspicuousness and potentially limit predation risk via modulation of signal properties or display rate. To do so, we conducted a manipulative experiment in nature to evaluate the possible effect of predation pressure on the physical properties of movementbased signals and on the proportion of time spent signaling by using a well-understood predator-prey system in the Bahamas, the semiarboreal lizard Anolis sagrei, and one of its main predators, the curly-tailed lizard Leiocephalus carinatus. We find that on islands onto which the predator was introduced, male anoles reduce the maximum amplitude of head-bob displays but not the proportion of time spent signaling, in comparison with control islands lacking the predator. This reduction of amplitude also decreases signal active space, which might alter the reproductive success of signaling individuals. We suggest that future studies of predatorprey interactions consider the risk effects generated by changes in signals or signaling behavior to fully determine the influence of predation pressure on the dynamics of prey populations.T he process of communication is central to many aspects of social interaction, from attracting mates to establishing territories. The major prerequisite for communication is that an individual or its signal must effectively capture and hold the attention of intended receivers (1, 2). However, communication rarely occurs in a context free from the risk of predation, and thus the presence of predators is an important selective pressure on the physical designs of signals and the behaviors associated with their display (e.g., refs. 3-9). In fact, predation pressure typically results in signals with reduced conspicuousness (i.e., the likelihood of being seen by a predator) at one or both of two timescales: (i) across generations (i.e., via evolutionary mechanisms) or (ii) within the lifetime of an individual (i.e., via behavioral mechanisms). The evolution of less conspicuous signal properties in response to predation pressure has been demonstrated across signaling modalities, including acoustic, electrical, visual, and ultrasonic signals (e.g., refs. 9, 10). Predation pressure also shapes the evolution of the behaviors associated with the production of signals, often resulting in a shift in the amount of time spent signaling throughout the day or in the use of less vulnerable display sites (11-16).Behavioral changes favoring a reduction in the likelihood of communication-associated predation typically precede evolutionary changes (12). This process most likely is driven by the plastic...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation-associated modulation of movement-based signals by a Bahamian lizard

Steinberg

Losos

Schoener

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Animals use this capacity in situations such as changing social contexts (Janik 2000, Brumm and Slater 2006a, Gavassa et al 2013 or coping with challenging conditions for signal detection in fluctuating environments (Lengagne et al 1999, Ord et al 2007, Goodwin and Podos 2013. Indeed, there is growing evidence that signal detection constraints are one of the major forces driving the evolution of animal communication systems across different taxa , Wiley 2015.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocal plasticity in mallards: multiple signal changes in noise and the evolution of the Lombard effect in birds

Dorado-Correa

Zollinger

Brumm

2017

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signal plasticity is a building block of complex animal communication systems. A particular form of signal plasticity is the Lombard effect, in which a signaler increases its vocal amplitude in response to an increase in the background noise. The Lombard effect is a basic mechanism for communication in noise that is well-studied in human speech and which has also been reported in other mammals and several bird species. Sometimes, but not always, the Lombard effect is accompanied by additional changes in signal parameters. However, the evolution of the Lombard effect and related vocal adjustments in birds are still unclear because so far only three major avian clades have been studied. We report the first evidence for the Lombard effect in an anseriform bird, the mallard Anas platyrhynchos. In association with the Lombard effect, the fifteen ducklings in our experiment also increased the peak frequency of their calls in noise. However, they did not change the duration of call syllables or their call rates as has been found in other bird species. Our findings support the notion that all extant birds use the Lombard effect to solve the common problem of maintaining communication in noise, i.e. it is an ancestral trait shared among all living avian taxa, which means that it has evolved more than 70 million yr ago. At the same time, our data suggest that parameter changes associated with the Lombard effect follow more complex patterns, with marked differences between taxa, some of which might be related to proximate constraints.

show abstract

“…This DC-asymmetry destroys the electric crypsis of the multiphasic waveform by diverting significant energy to the spectrum detected by ampullary electroreceptors. The presence of breeding females elicits dynamic 2nd phase extension by male Brachyhypopomus gauderio (Gavassa et al, 2013) and a corresponding boost in low-frequency energy (Figure 6). This sexual dimorphism is further enhanced at night by a circadian rhythm in the hormones that regulate waveform shape (Stoddard et al, 2003(Stoddard et al, , 2007Markham and Stoddard, 2005;Markham et al, 2009a), in part through trafficking of ion channels (Markham FIGURE 5 | EODs of three gymnotiform electric fish species and their corresponding power spectra.…”

Section: Eod Properties and Detectability By Predatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation and Crypsis in the Evolution of Electric Signaling in Weakly Electric Fishes

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eavesdropping by electroreceptive predators poses a conflict for weakly electric fish, which depend on their Electric Organ Discharge (EOD) signals both for navigation and communication in the dark. The EODs that allow weakly electric fish to electrolocate and communicate in the dark may attract electroreceptive predators such as catfishes and Electric Eels. These predators share with their prey the synapomorphy of passive electric sense supported by ampullary electroreceptors that are highly sensitive to low-frequency electric fields. Any low-frequency spectral components of the EOD make weakly electric fish conspicuous and vulnerable to attack from electroreceptive predators. Accordingly, most weakly electric fish shift spectral energy upwards or cloak low-frequency energy with compensatory masking signals. Subadults and females in particular emit virtually no low-frequency energy in their EODs, whereas courting males include a significant low-frequency component, which likely attracts females, but makes the signals conspicuous to predators. Males of species that coexist with the most predators tend to produce the least low-frequency signal energy, expressing sexual dimorphism in their signals in less risky ways. In these respects, electric signals follow the classic responses to opposing forces of natural and sexual selection, as exemplified in the visual signals of guppies and the acoustic signals of Túngara frogs. Unique to electric fish is that the electric signal modifications that help elude detection by electroreceptive predators are additions to the basal signal rather than losses of attractive components. These enhancements that enable crypsis are energetically costly, but have also provided the evolutionary substrates for subsequent sexual selection and species identity characters.

show abstract

Social regulation of electric signal plasticity in male Brachyhypopomus gauderio

Cited by 11 publications

References 41 publications

Predation-associated modulation of movement-based signals by a Bahamian lizard

Predation-associated modulation of movement-based signals by a Bahamian lizard

Vocal plasticity in mallards: multiple signal changes in noise and the evolution of the Lombard effect in birds

Predation and Crypsis in the Evolution of Electric Signaling in Weakly Electric Fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About