DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Camouflage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Camouflage AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 1 of 7 www.accessscience.com Animal camouflage Contributed by: Chuan-Chin Chiao, Roger T. Hanlon Publication year: 2013 Visual camouflage is recognized as one of the commonest and most powerful forces in natural selection and is found in nearly every ecosystem on Earth, yet curiously it is one of the least-studied phenomena in biology. Camouflage patterns have evolved in animals of every size and shape, including both invertebrates and vertebrates, and occur in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Camouflage is even employed at night, a seemingly odd notion until it is realized that many nocturnal predators have specialized visual systems for seeing well under lighting conditions that humans cannot perceive. In recent years, camouflage has been studied in considerable experimental detail, and some exciting new discoveries are reshaping our views of the visual mechanisms by which camouflage works. Hide in plain sight Camouflage may be achieved in three ways: background matching, disruptive coloration, and masquerade. Background matching is thought to operate by avoiding detection by the predator, whereas masquerade retards recognition of prey by the predator. Disruptive coloration seems to influence both detection and recognition processes, although few experimental data exist. There is general agreement that background matching, where the appearance generally resembles the color, lightness, and pattern of one or several background types, is one of the most common mechanisms of camouflage. For background matching to be effective, the light and dark patches of the body pattern (regardless of the type of animal) need to generally resemble the size scale and contrast of the light and dark background patches (of course, color and physical texture have to generally match as well). Except for the rare cases of a high-fidelity match, camouflage is not simply looking exactly like the background. Disruptive coloration uses a set of markings that creates the appearance of false edges and boundaries, and it hinders the detection or recognition of an object’s, or part of an object’s, true outline and shape, thus distracting the predator’s attention. The third camouflage tactic is masquerade, in which the prey may be detected as distinct from the visual background but not recognized as edible or interesting (for example, by resembling a leaf or a stick). In this deceptive resemblance, unlike background matching, animals do not generally resemble the background, but rather they actively choose to generally match visual features of objects beyond the immediate surroundings. Camouflage body pattern types The ubiquity of animal camouflage begs a basic question that has not been adequately addressed: How many body patterns for camouflage are there? One way to approach the problem is to study the animals that can best AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 2 of 7 www.accessscience.com WIDTH:DFig. 1 Three body pattern types (uniform, mottle, and disruptive) are universal for camouflage in the animal kingdom. These patterns have evolved in animals of every size and shape, including both invertebrates and vertebrates, and occur in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. change their appearance for camouflage in a wide variety of visual habitats: that is, the cephalopods (octopus, squid, and cuttlefish in the phylum Mollusca). Extensive studies of cuttlefish in the ocean and laboratory indicate, surprisingly and counterintuitively, only three basic patterning templates: namely, uniform, mottle, and disruptive. A survey of animal body patterns among thousands of camouflage images reveals similar pattern categories ( Fig. 1 ). Of course, there is variation within each broad pattern class. A chief characteristic of uniform body patterns is little or no contrast; that is, there are no light–dark demarcations that produce spots, lines, stripes, or other configurations within the body pattern. Mottle body patterns are defined as small- to moderate-scale light and dark patches (or mottles) distributed somewhat evenly and repeatedly across the body surface. Disruptive body patterns are characterized by large-scale light and dark components of multiple shapes, orientations, scales, and contrasts. Such classification into three categories is relatively new and partly controversial, but recently developed quantitative methods support the morphological and photographic evidence of just a few basic camouflage pattern types, at least in the cuttlefish (see below). Moreover, the pattern types correlate to the visual mechanisms involved with background matching and disruptive coloration, and the basic tenets of deceiving predators by interfering with their perceptual abilities for detection and recognition of prey. The overall hypothesis, based upon the concept of parsimony (the principle that the simplest scientific explanation is best), is that there is a relatively simple “visual sampling rule” for each of the few basic camouflage body pattern types. AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 3 of 7 www.accessscience.com WIDTH:DFig. 2 Octopus vulgaris reacting to a diver (predator). The initial change from camouflaged to conspicuous takes only milliseconds (ms) as a result of direct neural control of the skin. Full expression of the threat display ( right ) is 2 s. Video frame rate is 30 frames per second. [ Adapted from R. Hanlon, Cephalopod dynamic camouflage, Curr. Biol., 17(11):R400–R404, 2007; http: ∕∕ hermes.mbl.edu ∕ mrc ∕ hanlon ∕ video.html ] Cephalopod dynamic camouflage Cephalopod mollusks possess soft bodies, diverse behavior, elaborate skin patterning capabilities, and a sophisticated visual system that controls body patterning for communication and camouflage. Although most animals have a fixed or slowly changing camouflage pattern, cephalopods have evolved a different defense tactic: they use their keen vision and sophisticated skin, with direct neural control for rapid change and fine-tuned optical diversity, to rapidly adapt their body pattern for appropriate camouflage against a staggering array of visual backgrounds, including colorful coral reefs, temperate rock reefs, kelp forests, sand or mud plains, seagrass beds, and others ( Fig. 2 ). The eye as a sensor of diverse visual backgrounds Testing the visual cues that drive the adjustment of body patterning and posture is possible with cephalopods. European cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis , are particularly suited for this task because they are well adapted to laboratory environments and they are, like many shallow-water benthic (bottom-dwelling) cephalopods, behaviorally driven to camouflage themselves on almost any background; thus, both natural and artificial backgrounds can be presented to cuttlefish in order to observe their camouflaging response ( Fig. 3 ). Which properties of the background determine whether a cuttlefish will produce a uniform, mottle, or disruptive pattern? This issue has received much attention over the past decade. Three of the most important factors are (1) the spatial frequency content of the background, (2) the contrast of the background, and (3) whether or not the background contains any bright elements of roughly the same size as the cuttlefish’s “white square” (a rectangular skin patch on the dorsal mantle; lower right panel in Fig. 3). In addition, increasing substrate luminance tends to attenuate the production of disruptive patterns. The edge of objects and visual depth also provide salient cues in evoking disruptive patterns. AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 4 of 7 www.accessscience.com WIDTH:DFig. 3 A visual sensorimotor assay for probing cuttlefish ( Sepia officinalis ) perception and subsequent dynamic camouflage. Top row : Visual backgrounds with different size, contrast, edge characteristics, and arrangement are perceived by the cuttlefish, which quickly translates the information into a complex, highly coordinated body pattern type of uniform, mottle, or disruptive. Bottom row : Simple visual stimuli (such as uniformity or small to large high-contrast checkerboards) can elicit uniform, mottle, or disruptive camouflage patterns (left to right) in cuttlefish. The chief differ ence in the latter two backgrounds is the scale of the checker. Both the visual background and the body pattern can be quantified so that correlations can be made between visual input and motor output. [ Adapted from R. Hanlon, Cephalopod dynamic camouflage, Curr. Biol., 17(11):R400–R404, 2007 ] Camouflage may benefit from both optical and physical texture, with the latter being chiefly a result of the changeable skin papillae. Furthermore, arm postures of cuttlefish are often associated with three-dimensional structures (corals, algae, or kelp), and these field observations suggest that this is a visually driven response for camouflage. Camouflage in the eyes of the beholder Many visual predators have keen color perception, and thus camouflage patterns should provide some degree of color matching in addition to other visual factors such as pattern, contrast, and texture. However, most cephalopods, including the cuttlefish, lack color perception; thus, the vexing question of how they achieve color-blind camouflage still remains. Nevertheless, their color resemblance to natural visual backgrounds appears to be excellent. This is not surprising, as many of their predators, including teleost fishes, diving birds, and marine mammals, typically have dichromatic, trichromatic, or even tetrachromatic vision. Although quantifying camouflage effectiveness in the eyes of the predator is challenging,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Predators As Agents of Selection and Diversification
    diversity Review Predators as Agents of Selection and Diversification Jerald B. Johnson * and Mark C. Belk Evolutionary Ecology Laboratories, Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-801-422-4502 Received: 6 October 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 31 October 2020 Abstract: Predation is ubiquitous in nature and can be an important component of both ecological and evolutionary interactions. One of the most striking features of predators is how often they cause evolutionary diversification in natural systems. Here, we review several ways that this can occur, exploring empirical evidence and suggesting promising areas for future work. We also introduce several papers recently accepted in Diversity that demonstrate just how important and varied predation can be as an agent of natural selection. We conclude that there is still much to be done in this field, especially in areas where multiple predator species prey upon common prey, in certain taxonomic groups where we still know very little, and in an overall effort to actually quantify mortality rates and the strength of natural selection in the wild. Keywords: adaptation; mortality rates; natural selection; predation; prey 1. Introduction In the history of life, a key evolutionary innovation was the ability of some organisms to acquire energy and nutrients by killing and consuming other organisms [1–3]. This phenomenon of predation has evolved independently, multiple times across all known major lineages of life, both extinct and extant [1,2,4]. Quite simply, predators are ubiquitous agents of natural selection. Not surprisingly, prey species have evolved a variety of traits to avoid predation, including traits to avoid detection [4–6], to escape from predators [4,7], to withstand harm from attack [4], to deter predators [4,8], and to confuse or deceive predators [4,8].
    [Show full text]
  • Read Evolutionary Ecology
    Evolutionary Ecology Eric R. Pianka For this generation who must confront the shortsightness of their ancestors Citation Classic, Book Review Sixth Edition out of print but available used Seventh Edition - eBook available from Google Read On Line Here (use Safari --(other browsers may not work): Chapter 1 - Background Definitions and Groundwork, anthropocentrism, the importance of wild organisms in pristine natural environments, scaling and the hierarchical structure of biology, levels of approach in biology, domain of ecology, the scientific method, models, simple versus multiple causality, environment, limiting factors, tolerance limits, the principle of allocation, natural selection, self-replicating molecular assemblages, levels of selection, the urgency of basic ecological research Chapter 2 - Classical Biogeography Self-replicating molecular assemblages, geological past, classical biogeography, plate tectonics and continental drift Chapter 3 - Meteorology Major determinants of climate, local perturbations, variations in time and space, global weather modification Chapter 4 - Climate and Vegetation Plant life forms and biomes, microclimate, primary production and evapotranspiration, soil formation and primary succession, ecotones, classification of natural communities, interface between climate and vegetation, aquatic systems Chapter 5 - Resource Acquisition and Allocation Limiting factors, physiological optima and tolerance curves, energetics of metabolism and movement, resource and energy budgets, the principle of allocation, leaf
    [Show full text]
  • EXTRA-PAIR MATING and EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE in the SONG SPARROW (Melospiza Melodia)
    EXTRA-PAIR MATING AND EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE IN THE SONG SPARROW (Melospiza melodia) By Kathleen D. O'Connor B.A., Skidmore College, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY Department of Forest Sciences Centre for Applied Conservation Research We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2003 © Kathleen D. O'Connor, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Fpce_t Sciences The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 2HApc. 20O5 DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Effective population size is used widely in conservation research and management as an indicator of the genetic state of populations. However, estimates of effective population size for socially monogamous species can vary with the frequency of matings outside of the social pair. I investigated the effect of cryptic extra-pair fertilization on effective population size estimates using four years of demographic and genetic data from a resident population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia Oberholser 1899) on Mandarte Island, British Columbia, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Foraging : an Ecology Model of Consumer Behaviour?
    This is a repository copy of Foraging : an ecology model of consumer behaviour?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/122432/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Wells, VK orcid.org/0000-0003-1253-7297 (2012) Foraging : an ecology model of consumer behaviour? Marketing Theory. pp. 117-136. ISSN 1741-301X https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593112441562 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Foraging: an ecology model of consumer behavior? Victoria.K.Wells* Durham Business School, UK First Submission June 2010 Revision One December 2010 Revision Two August 2011 Accepted for Publication: September 2011 * Address for correspondence: Dr Victoria Wells (née James), Durham Business School, Durham University, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB & Queen’s Campus, University Boulevard, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, Telephone: +44 (0)191 334 0472, E-mail: [email protected] I would like to thank Tony Ellson for his guidance and Gordon Foxall for his helpful comments during the development and writing of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Niche Evolution ­ Evolutionary Biology ­ Oxford Bibliographies
    8/23/2016 Niche Evolution ­ Evolutionary Biology ­ Oxford Bibliographies Niche Evolution Alex Pyron LAST MODIFIED: 26 MAY 2016 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199941728­0075 Introduction The evolution of species’ niches is a process that is fundamental to investigations in numerous fields of biology, including speciation, community assembly, and long­term regional and global diversification processes. It forms the nexus between ecological and evolutionary questions. Topics as diverse as ecological speciation, niche conservatism, species coexistence, and historical biogeography all rely on interpreting patterns and drivers of species’ niches through time and across landscapes. Despite this importance, a distinct research agenda concerning niche evolution as a discrete topic of inquiry has yet to emerge. Niche evolution is often considered as a sidebar or of secondary importance when addressing questions such as “how did two species diverge?” Basic questions such as “what is a niche,” “what is the biological basis of niche evolution,” “at what scale should we evaluate niche evolution,” and “how can we observe niche evolution at different timescales” have rarely been addressed directly, or not at all in some systems. However, various intellectual threads connecting these ideas are evident in a number of recent and historical publications, giving some semblance of form to a framework for interpreting and evaluating niche evolution, and outlining major areas for future research from an evolutionary perspective. There is a reverse perspective from the macroecological scale as well, with questions involving coexistence, distributions and ranges, food webs, and other organismal attributes. General Overview Niche evolution has rarely, if ever, been addressed in depth as a standalone topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Mimicry - Ecology - Oxford Bibliographies 12/13/12 7:29 PM
    Mimicry - Ecology - Oxford Bibliographies 12/13/12 7:29 PM Mimicry David W. Kikuchi, David W. Pfennig Introduction Among nature’s most exquisite adaptations are examples in which natural selection has favored a species (the mimic) to resemble a second, often unrelated species (the model) because it confuses a third species (the receiver). For example, the individual members of a nontoxic species that happen to resemble a toxic species may dupe any predators by behaving as if they are also dangerous and should therefore be avoided. In this way, adaptive resemblances can evolve via natural selection. When this phenomenon—dubbed “mimicry”—was first outlined by Henry Walter Bates in the middle of the 19th century, its intuitive appeal was so great that Charles Darwin immediately seized upon it as one of the finest examples of evolution by means of natural selection. Even today, mimicry is often used as a prime example in textbooks and in the popular press as a superlative example of natural selection’s efficacy. Moreover, mimicry remains an active area of research, and studies of mimicry have helped illuminate such diverse topics as how novel, complex traits arise; how new species form; and how animals make complex decisions. General Overviews Since Henry Walter Bates first published his theories of mimicry in 1862 (see Bates 1862, cited under Historical Background), there have been periodic reviews of our knowledge in the subject area. Cott 1940 was mainly concerned with animal coloration. Subsequent reviews, such as Edmunds 1974 and Ruxton, et al. 2004, have focused on types of mimicry associated with defense from predators.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig the Man the Scientist the Legend
    BIOL 7083 Community Ecologist Presentation Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig The Man The Scientist The Legend Michael Rosenzweigs Biographical Information Born in 1941 Jewish Parents wanted him to be a physician Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, 1966 Advisor: Robert H. MacArthur, Ph.D. Married for over 40 years to Carole Ruth Citron Together they have three children, and several grandchildren Biographical Information Known to be an innovator Founded the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona in 1975, and was its first head In 1987 he founded the scientific journal Evolutionary Ecology In 1998, when prices for journals began to rise, he founded a competitor, Evolutionary Ecology Research Honor and Awards Ecological Society of America Eminent Ecologist Award for 2008 Faculty of Sci, Univ Arizona, Career Teaching Award, 2001 Ninth Lukacs Symp: Twentieth Century Distinguished Service Award, 1999 International Ecological Soc: Distinguished Statistical Ecologist, 1998 Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, Univ Arizona: Fellow, 1997±8 Mountain Research Center, Montana State Univ: Distinguished Lecturer, 1997 Univ Umeå, Sweden: Distinguished Visiting Scholar, 1997 Univ Miami: Distinguished Visiting Professor, 1996±7 Univ British Columbia: Dennis Chitty Lecturer, 1995±6 Iowa State Univ: 30th Paul L. Errington Memorial Lecturer, 1994 Michigan State Univ, Kellogg Biological Station: Eminent Ecologist, 1992 Honor and Awards Ben-Gurion Univ of the Negev, Israel: Jacob Blaustein Scholar, 1992
    [Show full text]
  • Can More K-Selected Species Be Better Invaders?
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2007) 13, 535–543 Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Can more K-selected species be better RESEARCH invaders? A case study of fruit flies in La Réunion Pierre-François Duyck1*, Patrice David2 and Serge Quilici1 1UMR 53 Ӷ Peuplements Végétaux et ABSTRACT Bio-agresseurs en Milieu Tropical ӷ CIRAD Invasive species are often said to be r-selected. However, invaders must sometimes Pôle de Protection des Plantes (3P), 7 chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 St Pierre, La Réunion, France, compete with related resident species. In this case invaders should present combina- 2UMR 5175, CNRS Centre d’Ecologie tions of life-history traits that give them higher competitive ability than residents, Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), 1919 route de even at the expense of lower colonization ability. We test this prediction by compar- Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex, France ing life-history traits among four fruit fly species, one endemic and three successive invaders, in La Réunion Island. Recent invaders tend to produce fewer, but larger, juveniles, delay the onset but increase the duration of reproduction, survive longer, and senesce more slowly than earlier ones. These traits are associated with higher ranks in a competitive hierarchy established in a previous study. However, the endemic species, now nearly extinct in the island, is inferior to the other three with respect to both competition and colonization traits, violating the trade-off assumption. Our results overall suggest that the key traits for invasion in this system were those that *Correspondence: Pierre-François Duyck, favoured competition rather than colonization. CIRAD 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410, Keywords St Pierre, La Réunion Island, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of Models of Fundamental Ecological Niches and Species’ Distributional Areas
    Biodiversity Informatics, 2, 2005, pp. 1-10 INTERPRETATION OF MODELS OF FUNDAMENTAL ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND SPECIES’ DISTRIBUTIONAL AREAS JORGE SOBERÓN Comisión Nacional de Biodiversidad, México, and Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, México AND A. TOWNSEND PETERSON Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA Abstract.—Estimation of the dimensions of fundamental ecological niches of species to predict their geographic distributions is increasingly being attempted in systematics, ecology, conservation, public health, etc. This technique is often (of necessity) based on data comprising records of presences only. In recent years, modeling approaches have been devised to estimate these interrelated expressions of a species’ ecology, distributional biology, and evolutionary history—nevertheless, a formal basis in ecological and evolutionary theory has largely been lacking. In this paper, we outline such a formal basis to clarify the use of techniques applied to the challenge of estimating ‘ecological niches;’ we analyze example situations that can be modeled using these techniques, and clarify interpretation of results. Key words.—ecological niche, fundamental niche, realizad niche, geographic distribution The fact that, at certain scales, climatic and occurrences with data sets summarizing climatic, physical factors affect profoundly the distributions topographic, edaphic, and other ‘ecological’ of species has been known for a very long time. In dimensions (in the form of GIS layers); the last two decades, mathematical techniques combinations of environmental variables most designed to estimate the geographic extent of the closely associated with observed presences of “fundamental ecological niche” (FN), or subsets of species can then be identified and projected onto it, defined mostly in coarse-scale climatic landscapes to identify appropriate regions, as dimensions [the “bioclimatic envelope” or climatic above.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell Resource Partitioning As a Mechanism of Coexistence in Two Co‑Occurring Terrestrial Hermit Crab Species Sebastian Steibl and Christian Laforsch*
    Steibl and Laforsch BMC Ecol (2020) 20:1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0268-2 BMC Ecology RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Shell resource partitioning as a mechanism of coexistence in two co-occurring terrestrial hermit crab species Sebastian Steibl and Christian Laforsch* Abstract Background: Coexistence is enabled by ecological diferentiation of the co-occurring species. One possible mecha- nism thereby is resource partitioning, where each species utilizes a distinct subset of the most limited resource. This resource partitioning is difcult to investigate using empirical research in nature, as only few species are primarily limited by solely one resource, rather than a combination of multiple factors. One exception are the shell-dwelling hermit crabs, which are known to be limited under natural conditions and in suitable habitats primarily by the avail- ability of gastropod shells. In the present study, we used two co-occurring terrestrial hermit crab species, Coenobita rugosus and C. perlatus, to investigate how resource partitioning is realized in nature and whether it could be a driver of coexistence. Results: Field sampling of eleven separated hermit crab populations showed that the two co-occurring hermit crab species inhabit the same beach habitat but utilize a distinct subset of the shell resource. Preference experiments and principal component analysis of the shell morphometric data thereby revealed that the observed utilization patterns arise out of diferent intrinsic preferences towards two distinct shell shapes. While C. rugosus displayed a preference towards a short and globose shell morphology, C. perlatus showed preferences towards an elongated shell morphol- ogy with narrow aperture. Conclusion: The two terrestrial hermit crab species occur in the same habitat but have evolved diferent preferences towards distinct subsets of the limiting shell resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Relations Chapter 8 Behavioral Ecology
    Social Relations Chapter 8 Behavioral Ecology: Study of social relations. Studies interactions between organisms and the environment mediated by behavior 1 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Some differences between males and females…besides the obvious!!! • Females produce larger, more energetically costly gametes. • Males produce smaller, less energetically costly gametes. Female reproduction thought to be limited by resource access. Male reproduction limited by mate access. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NjnFBGW3Fmg&feature=related2 Hermaphrodites • Hermaphrodites Exhibit both male and female function. Most familiar example is plants. So, how do organisms choose their mate??? 3 Mate Choice • Sexual Selection Differences in reproductive rates among individuals as a result of differences in mating success. Intrasexual Selection: Individuals of one sex compete among themselves for mates. Intersexual Selection: Individuals of one sex consistently choose mates among members of opposite sex based on a particular trait. http://www.youtube.co m/watch? v=eYU4v_ZTRII 4 How much is too much??? • Darwin proposed that sexual selection would continue until balanced by other sources of natural selection • Given a choice, female guppies will mate with brightly colored males. However, brightly colored males attract predators. It’s a trade-off! 5 Class Activity!!! • In groups, using guys in a bar looking for dates example, come up with a scenario of sexual selection either going too far or succeeding!!! Be creative!!! 6 Sexual Selection in Plants??? Nonrandom Mating Found Among Wild Radish • Wild radish flowers have both male (stamens) and female (pistils) parts, but cannot self-pollinate. • Marshall found non-random mating in wild radish populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is Behavioural Ecology Going?
    Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.21 No.7 July 2006 Where is behavioural ecology going? Ian P.F. Owens Division of Biology and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, UK, SL5 7PY Since the 1990s, behavioural ecologists have largely wove together the theories developed over the preceding abandoned some traditional areas of interest, such as decade and championed a new empirical approach to optimal foraging, but many long-standing challenges investigating behaviour. The key element of this approach remain. Moreover, the core strengths of behavioural was the use of adaptation as the central conceptual ecology, including the use of simple adaptive models to framework, which gave behavioural ecologists a precise investigate complex biological phenomena, have now a priori expectation: behaviours should evolve to maxi- been applied to new puzzles outside behaviour. But this mise the fitness of the individuals showing strategy comes at a cost. Replication across studies is those behaviours. rare and there have been few tests of the underlying Krebs and Davies also stressed the importance of two genetic assumptions of adaptive models. Here, I attempt other principles [27]. The first was the need to quantify to identify the key outstanding questions in behavioural variation in behaviour accurately. Drawing attention to ecology and suggest that researchers must make the new quantitative work that was being performed in greater use of model organisms and evolutionary some areas of ethology [28,29], they showed how this genetics in order to make substantial progress on approach could be applied to a variety of behaviours.
    [Show full text]