Evolution Of Animal Communication
The Evolution of Communication
Animal communication can be defined as the provision of information that benefits the sender that is ensured by influencing the receiver into a response; this is known as a signal. Signals can be behavioural, physiological or morphological characteristics formed or preserved by natural selection because they allow communication between animals (Otte 1974). However animals also posses the ability to inadvertently produce stimuli, that can be exploited by other animals in a process known as eavesdropping. When an animal provides information in this manner it is known as a cue (Bradbury and Vehrencamp 1998).
Communication when regarded from a functional and evolutionary point of view is a social …show more content…
adaptation. The activity and presence of living organisms in a given environment will directly affect the continued survival and reproductive success of an animal either of the same species or different. Thus sexual and natural selection has and will continue to determine the ability animals have in exchanging information. Communication is a complex process that uses different sensory channels to send and receive information. The use of visual, tactile, chemical, auditory and electrical signals by different living organisms allows them to exchange information however complex, over varying distances at different rates. Communication as a social adaptation has many purposes ranging from use in agonistic interactions, mating rituals to food related signals. This includes the large multi-coloured feathered tail of the peafowl that is used to charm and excite members of the opposite sex when selecting sexual partners (Ruse 2008). Through evolutionary development whole brain structures have arisen, solely devoted to controlling the Syrinx, the vocal organ some birds use to convey fitness in sexual selection rituals (Read and Weary 1990). Even the small red spot on a herring’s bill that may seem insignificant has a complex evolutionary explanation (Drury and Smith 1968). Understanding communication from an evolutionary perspective means pin pointing various selective pressures that are responsible for the differences in how animals communicate and what information they exchange.
The first step to understanding the evolution of communication, is understanding the processes by which an animal that was previously lacking in a vital feature and behaviour acquired it. For example Julian Huxley and Edmund Selous were the first to describe the means by which evolution worked in the production animal displays such as that of threat and courtship (Lorenz 1966). They noticed that a large amount of the movements that governed communication were similar, if slightly different to the movements that were used in completely different functions in the normal everyday activity of an animal (Lorenz 1966). Julian Huxley and Edmund Selous made evident that communication movements had evolved from everyday activity of an animal, and named this process reutilization (Lorenz 1966). Ritualized movements are easily recognizable and are one of the fastest evolutionary processes that affect undomesticated animals. This can be seen by the comparative studies that show the dissimilarities of species that are closely related. The comparative study of closely related species can show that certain movements can be interoperated to depict communication between a signal sender and receiver. These movements would otherwise show no communicative function in their most primitive forms. The ability for these ritualised movements to grow in to more specialised and complicated signals can be depicted by the study of grass finches done by Desmond Morris (Morris 1958). The primitive beak wiping movement used for a preening function was observed in many of the species, however in some of the species this movement has been developed to be used as a signal during courtship (Morris 1958).
The next step is identifying various selective pressures that have caused these animals to adapt tools and structures that now allow the sending and receiving of information, and the response to it. The study of Widow birds can show how the evolution influenced visual signals used in mating rituals and agnositic activities. Studies have shown how the males in different species have acquired their extra long tails. Female preference for long tails was first demonstrated in Long-tailed Widow birds (Andersson 1982) and then further demonstrated in the Lekkin Jackson’s Widow birds (Andersson 1989) and Red Collared Widow brids (Pryke, Andersson and Lawes 2001) . However in the Yellow Shouldered Widow bird tail length contributed to agnostic function in territorial selection. In the case of the Widow birds, the longer tail length has been selected due to its indicator for fitness (Pryke et al. 2001). The tail thus can be regarded as a badge of status. These are used by animals to portray their dominance and where they stand in rank. It is thus essential that these indicators are honest in order to prevent inferior quality individuals from adopting them (Strassmann 2004). A study carried out by Pryke and Anderson on the short tailed Red Shouldered Widow bird involved the artificial manipulation of tail length both within in the natural range and outside it; supernormal tails (Pryke and Andersson 2002). The results showed that the females still preferred longer tails even those outside the natural range (Pryke and Andersson 2002). In this case the visual signals that were supposed to indicate fitness were manipulated by human intervention to simulate a signal that did not represent the truth. Can animals them selves misrepresent the truth? During courtship does a male’s signal honestly depict his fitness relative to the competition, or does he deceive a female that would otherwise have chosen a fitter mate? If an animal signals aggression over the opportunity of a resource, does the animal exaggerate the increased possibility of attack to fend off other animals that would otherwise defeat it?
By definition an honest animal signal would be a signal that is reliable, where one would have confidence in the truth behind the signal (Refeence). Thus for an animal signal to be honest if would also have to benefit the receiver. (Expand with more detail) Anti preditor warning systems in some species of poisonous frogs involves the use of colours as an honest signal to show that they are poisonous (Maan and Cummings). This means that the colours that a frog possess will cause preditiory selection of signal design, and thus can result in what is known as an evolutionary arms race. The is the competition of co-evolving genes that gain adaptations to counter each other through positive feedback (Vermeij 1993). A signal can then be said to be reliable if it is considered honest on average (Grafen and Johnstone 1993). In the case of badges of status dishonesty is prevented by the a social cost that is simply to higher by individuals that attempt to cheat (Strassmann 2004).
Therefore a dishonest signal would be considered the opposite of reliable, however this definition does not satisfy what exactly dishonest signals encompass (Mitchell and Thompson 1986). Thus deception can be defined as firstly a receiver registers something Y from a signaler; then the receiver responds in a way that benefits the signaler and is appropriate if Y means X; and It is not true here that X is the case (Searcy and Nowicki). An example of dishonest signals are used by fiddler crabs to exaggerate their fighting ability to other crabs. When a fiddler crab loses a claw, it can regenerate a weaker claw that possess as a stonger claw than that of the smaller but stronger claws (Lailvaux, Reaney and Backwell 2009).
Early ethologists believed that communication took place for the good of an entire species.
However this would require group selection that is mathematically not possible in the evolution of sexually reproducing animals (reference). Altruism in animals is not seen being exhibited to unrelated groups, but a reciprocal altruism can be said to be observed when it is beneficial living in a group (reference). This is most evident groups of relatives, as mutual interests tend to be higher with kinship. However socio-biologists argue that any behaviour that is seen to generally benefit a group will only emerge due to selection pressures that act only on the individual (Reference), thus selection takes place in order to ensure what is best for the individual and not the group. If this is indeed true then the reasons to why an animal will partake in cooperative communication. If the behaviour of an animal is predominantly selfish, animals would signal dishonestly in order to receive the highest individual gain. However since individual selection works on both the animals signalling and receiving, animals would only respond to signals which would prove advantageous for them. John Krebs and Richard Dawkins were the first to bring forth the idea that alteruistic or mutualistic communications result from individual selection, bringing forth the realisation that communication can be honest or dishonest (Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. 1978: Animal signals: information or …show more content…
manipulation). However if selection takes place for the benefit of the individual, animals would fail to respond to signals. And yet at the same time animals are observed responding to signals as we know communication does take place. Though Dawkins and Krebs discredited Altruistic understanding of animal communication, they failed to describe exactly how communication systems actually take place.
The handicap principle was proposed by Zahavi to describe how individual selection and cooperative information exchange take place hand in hand (Zahavi 1975). He used signals used in the mating ritual and sexual selection to express the deceptive versus cooperative problem in animal communication. Mate selection carried out by females will revolve around the idea that they select for signals which are an indicator of superior fitness in the males. For example the length of widow bird tales are the signals widow bird females look for to indicate level of fitness. As seen above in the study carried on red shouldered widow birds, human intervention caused the production of dishonest signals. This however is not the case, red shouldered widow bird males of inferior fitness do not have the ability to communicate a dishonest signal that would rendering useless the signal due to the fact the signal does not contain valid information. The reason behind this is proposed in the handicap principle. If widow bird males were able to produce a dishonest signal contain their supposed fitness, female widow birds would evolve to ignore that signal. Thus Zahavi suggests the handicap is an individual has passed a test to prove its superior fitness. In the case of red shouldered widow birds, the increased the length the tail means an increased risk to danger and predation faced by the owner. A widow bird male which has a highly developed handicap means despite the increased risk and danger, it has managed to survive and prosper, and thus the tail serves as proof of its superior fitness.
Andersson, M. (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature, 299, 818-820.
Andersson, S. (1989) Sexual selection and cues for female choice in leks of Jackson's widowbird <i>Euplectes jacksoni</i>. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 25, 403-410.
Bradbury, J. W. & S. L. Vehrencamp. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.
Drury, W. H., Jr. & W. J. Smith (1968) Defense of Feeding Areas by Adult Herring Gulls and Intrusion by Young. Evolution, 22, 193-201.
Grafen, A. & R. A. Johnstone (1993) Why We Need ESS Signalling Theory. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 340, 245-250.
Lailvaux, S.
P., L. T. Reaney & P. R. Y. Backwell (2009) Dishonest signalling of fighting ability and multiple performance traits in the fiddler crab Uca mjoebergi. Functional Ecology, 23, 359-366.
Lorenz, K. Z. (1966) Evolution of Ritualization in the Biological and Cultural Spheres. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 251, 273-284.
Data from: Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Dryad Data Repository.
Mitchell, R. W. & N. S. Thompson. 1986. Deception, perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Morris, D. (1958) THE COMPARATIVE ETHOLOGY OF GRASSFINCHES (ERYTHRURAE) AND MANNIKINS (AMADINAE). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 131, 389-439.
Otte, D. (1974) Effects and Functions in the Evolution of Signaling Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 385-417.
Pryke, S. R. & S. Andersson (2002) A Generalized Female Bias for Long Tails in a Short-Tailed Widowbird. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 269, 2141-2146.
Pryke, S. R., S. Andersson & M. J. Lawes (2001) SEXUAL SELECTION OF MULTIPLE HANDICAPS IN THE RED-COLLARED WIDOWBIRD: FEMALE CHOICE OF TAIL LENGTH BUT NOT CAROTENOID DISPLAY. Evolution, 55,
1452-1463.
Read, A. & D. Weary (1990) Sexual selection and the evolution of bird song: A test of the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 47-56.
Ruse, M. 2008. Humans. In Charles Darwin, 158-190. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Searcy, W. A. & S. Nowicki. The evolution of animal communication reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Strassmann, J. E. (2004) Animal behaviour: Rank crime and punishment. Nature, 432, 160-162.
Vermeij, G. J. 1993. Evolution and escalation : an ecological history oflife. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press.
Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection - A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205-214.
Animal communication can be defined as the provision of information that benefits the sender that is ensured by influencing the receiver into a response; this is known as a signal. Signals can be behavioural, physiological or morphological characteristics formed or preserved by natural selection because they allow communication between animals (Otte 1974). However animals also posses the ability to inadvertently produce stimuli, that can be exploited by other animals in a process known as eavesdropping. When an animal provides information in this manner it is known as a cue (Bradbury and Vehrencamp 1998).
Communication when regarded from a functional and evolutionary point of view is a social …show more content…
adaptation. The activity and presence of living organisms in a given environment will directly affect the continued survival and reproductive success of an animal either of the same species or different. Thus sexual and natural selection has and will continue to determine the ability animals have in exchanging information. Communication is a complex process that uses different sensory channels to send and receive information. The use of visual, tactile, chemical, auditory and electrical signals by different living organisms allows them to exchange information however complex, over varying distances at different rates. Communication as a social adaptation has many purposes ranging from use in agonistic interactions, mating rituals to food related signals. This includes the large multi-coloured feathered tail of the peafowl that is used to charm and excite members of the opposite sex when selecting sexual partners (Ruse 2008). Through evolutionary development whole brain structures have arisen, solely devoted to controlling the Syrinx, the vocal organ some birds use to convey fitness in sexual selection rituals (Read and Weary 1990). Even the small red spot on a herring’s bill that may seem insignificant has a complex evolutionary explanation (Drury and Smith 1968). Understanding communication from an evolutionary perspective means pin pointing various selective pressures that are responsible for the differences in how animals communicate and what information they exchange.
The first step to understanding the evolution of communication, is understanding the processes by which an animal that was previously lacking in a vital feature and behaviour acquired it. For example Julian Huxley and Edmund Selous were the first to describe the means by which evolution worked in the production animal displays such as that of threat and courtship (Lorenz 1966). They noticed that a large amount of the movements that governed communication were similar, if slightly different to the movements that were used in completely different functions in the normal everyday activity of an animal (Lorenz 1966). Julian Huxley and Edmund Selous made evident that communication movements had evolved from everyday activity of an animal, and named this process reutilization (Lorenz 1966). Ritualized movements are easily recognizable and are one of the fastest evolutionary processes that affect undomesticated animals. This can be seen by the comparative studies that show the dissimilarities of species that are closely related. The comparative study of closely related species can show that certain movements can be interoperated to depict communication between a signal sender and receiver. These movements would otherwise show no communicative function in their most primitive forms. The ability for these ritualised movements to grow in to more specialised and complicated signals can be depicted by the study of grass finches done by Desmond Morris (Morris 1958). The primitive beak wiping movement used for a preening function was observed in many of the species, however in some of the species this movement has been developed to be used as a signal during courtship (Morris 1958).
The next step is identifying various selective pressures that have caused these animals to adapt tools and structures that now allow the sending and receiving of information, and the response to it. The study of Widow birds can show how the evolution influenced visual signals used in mating rituals and agnositic activities. Studies have shown how the males in different species have acquired their extra long tails. Female preference for long tails was first demonstrated in Long-tailed Widow birds (Andersson 1982) and then further demonstrated in the Lekkin Jackson’s Widow birds (Andersson 1989) and Red Collared Widow brids (Pryke, Andersson and Lawes 2001) . However in the Yellow Shouldered Widow bird tail length contributed to agnostic function in territorial selection. In the case of the Widow birds, the longer tail length has been selected due to its indicator for fitness (Pryke et al. 2001). The tail thus can be regarded as a badge of status. These are used by animals to portray their dominance and where they stand in rank. It is thus essential that these indicators are honest in order to prevent inferior quality individuals from adopting them (Strassmann 2004). A study carried out by Pryke and Anderson on the short tailed Red Shouldered Widow bird involved the artificial manipulation of tail length both within in the natural range and outside it; supernormal tails (Pryke and Andersson 2002). The results showed that the females still preferred longer tails even those outside the natural range (Pryke and Andersson 2002). In this case the visual signals that were supposed to indicate fitness were manipulated by human intervention to simulate a signal that did not represent the truth. Can animals them selves misrepresent the truth? During courtship does a male’s signal honestly depict his fitness relative to the competition, or does he deceive a female that would otherwise have chosen a fitter mate? If an animal signals aggression over the opportunity of a resource, does the animal exaggerate the increased possibility of attack to fend off other animals that would otherwise defeat it?
By definition an honest animal signal would be a signal that is reliable, where one would have confidence in the truth behind the signal (Refeence). Thus for an animal signal to be honest if would also have to benefit the receiver. (Expand with more detail) Anti preditor warning systems in some species of poisonous frogs involves the use of colours as an honest signal to show that they are poisonous (Maan and Cummings). This means that the colours that a frog possess will cause preditiory selection of signal design, and thus can result in what is known as an evolutionary arms race. The is the competition of co-evolving genes that gain adaptations to counter each other through positive feedback (Vermeij 1993). A signal can then be said to be reliable if it is considered honest on average (Grafen and Johnstone 1993). In the case of badges of status dishonesty is prevented by the a social cost that is simply to higher by individuals that attempt to cheat (Strassmann 2004).
Therefore a dishonest signal would be considered the opposite of reliable, however this definition does not satisfy what exactly dishonest signals encompass (Mitchell and Thompson 1986). Thus deception can be defined as firstly a receiver registers something Y from a signaler; then the receiver responds in a way that benefits the signaler and is appropriate if Y means X; and It is not true here that X is the case (Searcy and Nowicki). An example of dishonest signals are used by fiddler crabs to exaggerate their fighting ability to other crabs. When a fiddler crab loses a claw, it can regenerate a weaker claw that possess as a stonger claw than that of the smaller but stronger claws (Lailvaux, Reaney and Backwell 2009).
Early ethologists believed that communication took place for the good of an entire species.
However this would require group selection that is mathematically not possible in the evolution of sexually reproducing animals (reference). Altruism in animals is not seen being exhibited to unrelated groups, but a reciprocal altruism can be said to be observed when it is beneficial living in a group (reference). This is most evident groups of relatives, as mutual interests tend to be higher with kinship. However socio-biologists argue that any behaviour that is seen to generally benefit a group will only emerge due to selection pressures that act only on the individual (Reference), thus selection takes place in order to ensure what is best for the individual and not the group. If this is indeed true then the reasons to why an animal will partake in cooperative communication. If the behaviour of an animal is predominantly selfish, animals would signal dishonestly in order to receive the highest individual gain. However since individual selection works on both the animals signalling and receiving, animals would only respond to signals which would prove advantageous for them. John Krebs and Richard Dawkins were the first to bring forth the idea that alteruistic or mutualistic communications result from individual selection, bringing forth the realisation that communication can be honest or dishonest (Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. 1978: Animal signals: information or …show more content…
manipulation). However if selection takes place for the benefit of the individual, animals would fail to respond to signals. And yet at the same time animals are observed responding to signals as we know communication does take place. Though Dawkins and Krebs discredited Altruistic understanding of animal communication, they failed to describe exactly how communication systems actually take place.
The handicap principle was proposed by Zahavi to describe how individual selection and cooperative information exchange take place hand in hand (Zahavi 1975). He used signals used in the mating ritual and sexual selection to express the deceptive versus cooperative problem in animal communication. Mate selection carried out by females will revolve around the idea that they select for signals which are an indicator of superior fitness in the males. For example the length of widow bird tales are the signals widow bird females look for to indicate level of fitness. As seen above in the study carried on red shouldered widow birds, human intervention caused the production of dishonest signals. This however is not the case, red shouldered widow bird males of inferior fitness do not have the ability to communicate a dishonest signal that would rendering useless the signal due to the fact the signal does not contain valid information. The reason behind this is proposed in the handicap principle. If widow bird males were able to produce a dishonest signal contain their supposed fitness, female widow birds would evolve to ignore that signal. Thus Zahavi suggests the handicap is an individual has passed a test to prove its superior fitness. In the case of red shouldered widow birds, the increased the length the tail means an increased risk to danger and predation faced by the owner. A widow bird male which has a highly developed handicap means despite the increased risk and danger, it has managed to survive and prosper, and thus the tail serves as proof of its superior fitness.
Andersson, M. (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature, 299, 818-820.
Andersson, S. (1989) Sexual selection and cues for female choice in leks of Jackson's widowbird <i>Euplectes jacksoni</i>. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 25, 403-410.
Bradbury, J. W. & S. L. Vehrencamp. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.
Drury, W. H., Jr. & W. J. Smith (1968) Defense of Feeding Areas by Adult Herring Gulls and Intrusion by Young. Evolution, 22, 193-201.
Grafen, A. & R. A. Johnstone (1993) Why We Need ESS Signalling Theory. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 340, 245-250.
Lailvaux, S.
P., L. T. Reaney & P. R. Y. Backwell (2009) Dishonest signalling of fighting ability and multiple performance traits in the fiddler crab Uca mjoebergi. Functional Ecology, 23, 359-366.
Lorenz, K. Z. (1966) Evolution of Ritualization in the Biological and Cultural Spheres. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 251, 273-284.
Data from: Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Dryad Data Repository.
Mitchell, R. W. & N. S. Thompson. 1986. Deception, perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Morris, D. (1958) THE COMPARATIVE ETHOLOGY OF GRASSFINCHES (ERYTHRURAE) AND MANNIKINS (AMADINAE). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 131, 389-439.
Otte, D. (1974) Effects and Functions in the Evolution of Signaling Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 385-417.
Pryke, S. R. & S. Andersson (2002) A Generalized Female Bias for Long Tails in a Short-Tailed Widowbird. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 269, 2141-2146.
Pryke, S. R., S. Andersson & M. J. Lawes (2001) SEXUAL SELECTION OF MULTIPLE HANDICAPS IN THE RED-COLLARED WIDOWBIRD: FEMALE CHOICE OF TAIL LENGTH BUT NOT CAROTENOID DISPLAY. Evolution, 55,
1452-1463.
Read, A. & D. Weary (1990) Sexual selection and the evolution of bird song: A test of the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 47-56.
Ruse, M. 2008. Humans. In Charles Darwin, 158-190. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Searcy, W. A. & S. Nowicki. The evolution of animal communication reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Strassmann, J. E. (2004) Animal behaviour: Rank crime and punishment. Nature, 432, 160-162.
Vermeij, G. J. 1993. Evolution and escalation : an ecological history oflife. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press.
Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection - A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205-214.