Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Communication under sexual selection hypotheses: challenging prospects for future studies under extreme sexual conflict

  • Commentary
  • Published:
acta ethologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Animal communication has been the target of multiple and controversial theoretical and experimental studies. Inter-sexual communication has been considered essential for specific identification and as a mechanism for mate choice. Communication has been re-interpreted as a way for exploitation, taking advantage of pre-existent sensory biases. Both female choice and sensory exploitation hypotheses have assumed the clear existence of inter-sexual communication prior to mating. On the contrary, extreme sexual conflict hypotheses would not recognize the existence of communication among the sexes. We surveyed the percentage of studies involving communication under female choice, sensory exploitation and extreme sexual conflict contexts. We discuss the traditional idea that forced copulations are considered synonymous of the absence of communication among the sexes. We provide suggestions for future studies on communication under extreme sexual conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M, Simmons L (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21(6):296–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arak A, Enquist M (1993) Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 340:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Baena M, Eberhard WG (2007) Appearances deceive: female “resistance” behaviour in a sepsid fly is not a test of male ability to hold on. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey NW, Zuk M (2008) Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc Royal Soc London B 275:2645–2650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastock M (1967) Courtship: an ethological study. Aldine, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Briffa M, Elwood RW (2009) Difficulties remain in distinguishing between mutual and self-assessment in animal contests. Anim Behav 77(3):759–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carazo P, Font E (2010) Putting information back into biological communication. J Evol Biol 23:661–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 8:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe JC, Crespi BJ (1997) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christy JH (1988) Pillar function in the fiddler crab Uca beebei (II): competitive courtship signaling. Ethology 78:113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christy JH (1995) Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am Nat 146:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christy JH, Salmon M (1984) Ecology and evolution of mating systems of fiddler crabs (genus Uca). Biol Rev 59:483–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman SW (2009) Taxonomic and sensory biases in the mate-choice literature: there are far too few studies of chemical and multimodal communication. Acta Ethologica 12:45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero Rivera A, Andrés JA (2002) Male coercion and convenience polyandry in a calopterygid damselfly. J Insect Sci 2:14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero A, Santolamazza Carbone S, Utzeri C (1992) A twenty-four-hours-lasting tandem in Coenagrion scitulum (Ramb.) in the laboratory (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Not odonatol 3:166–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female Choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: A critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2005) Interaction between sexually antagonistic selection and mate choice in the evolution of female responses to male traits. Evol Ecol 19:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa FG (1975) El comportamiento precopulatorio de Lycosa malitiosa Tullgren (Araneae, Lycosidae). Rev Brasil Biol 35(3):359–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson-François AM, Bukowski TC (2005) Female mating history influences copulation behavior but not sperm release in the orb-weaving spider Tetragnatha versicolor (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). J Insect Behav 18:131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins MS (1993) Are there general principles of signal design? Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 340:251–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG, Huber BA (1998) Courtship, copulation and sperm transfer in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). J Arachnol 26:342–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:125–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Font E, Carazo P (2010) Animals in translation: why there is meaning (but probably no message) in animal communication. Anim Behav 80:e1–e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 412:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away selection: antagonistic seduction vs. resistance. Evolution 52(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hruškovà-Martišová M, Pekár S, Bilde T (2010) Coercive copulation in two sexually cannibalistic camel-spider species (Arachnida: Solifugae). J Zool 282:91–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber BA (2005) Sexual selection research on spiders: progress and biases. Biol Rev 80:363–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson Green K, Madjidian JA (2011) Active males, reactive females: stereotypic sex roles in sexual conflict research? Anim Behav 81:901–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning A, Dawkins MS (1998) An introduction to animal behaviour, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith J, Harper DGC (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic, New York, pp 123–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans Royal Soc B 361:235–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peretti AV, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2007) On the value of fine-scaled behavioral observations for studies of sexual coercion. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peretti AV, Willemart RH (2007) Sexual coercion does not exclude luring behavior in the climbing camel-spider Oltacola chacoensis (Arachnida, Solifugae, Ammotrechidae). J Ethol 25:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72:413–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T, Snook RR (2003) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1123–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor HC (1991) Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor HC (1992) Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendall D, Owren MJ, Ryan MJ (2009) What do animal signals mean? Anim Behav 78:233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa JJ (1994) Trends Ecol Evol 9(8):289–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T (2005) Escalation and retreat during sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am Nat 165:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1998) Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999–2003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savalli UM, Fox CV (1999) Effect of male mating history on paternal investment, fecundity, and female remating in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Funct Ecol 13:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips TC (2008) Defining biological communication. J Evol Biol 21:387–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Bergman T, Fischer J, Zuberbühler K, Hammerschmidt K (2010) The central importance of information in studies of animal communication. Anim Behav 80:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater PJB (1999) Essentials of animal behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps and its implications. Am Nat 122:765–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe WH (1961) Bird-song. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K (2002) Coercive copulation in the Alpine bushcricket Anonconotus alpinus Yersin (Tettigoniidae: Tettigoniinae: Platycleidini). Ethology 108:1065–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K (2007) All that glisters is not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113:105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K, Carron G (2008) Comparison of forced mating behaviour in four taxa of Anonconotus, the alpine bushcricket. J Zool 276:313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sluijs I, Gray SM, Amorim MCP, Barber I, Candolin U, Hendry AP, Krahe R, Maan ME, Utne-Palm AC, Wagner H, Wong BB (2011) Communication in troubled waters: responses of fish communication systems to changing environments. Evol Ecol

  • Watters JV (2005) Can the alternative male tactics “fighter” and “sneaker” be considered “coercer” and “cooperator” in coho salmon? Anim Behav 70(5):1055–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (1979) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc Am Phil Soc 123:222–234

    Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (1984) Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Lewis T (ed) Insect communication. Academic, New York, pp 283–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuk M (1991) Sexual ornaments as animal signals. Trends Ecol Evol 6:228–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zuk M, Tinghitella RM (2008) Rapid evolution and sexual signals. In: D’Ettorre P, Hughes DP (eds) Sociobiology of communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 139–155

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank William G. Eberhard, Gabriel Francescoli, Karim Vahed, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Marlene Zuk and anonymous referees for constructive comments on previous versions of the manuscript. CONICET, FONCYT and SECYT-UNC of Argentina provided support to AVP. Finally, AA acknowledges financial support by PEDECIBA, UdelaR, Uruguay and the Animal Behavior Society through the Developing Nations Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio de Biología Reproductiva y Evolución, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Av. Vélez Sarsfield 299, Postal Code 5000, Córdoba, Argentina

    Alfredo V. Peretti

  2. Laboratorio de Etología, Ecología y Evolución, Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente Estable, Av. Italia 3318, Postal Code 11600, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Anita Aisenberg

Authors
  1. Alfredo V. Peretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita Aisenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfredo V. Peretti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peretti, A.V., Aisenberg, A. Communication under sexual selection hypotheses: challenging prospects for future studies under extreme sexual conflict. acta ethol 14, 109–116 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-011-0099-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-011-0099-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation