Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 185–192 | Cite as

Pillar building in the fiddler crab Uca beebei: evidence for a condition-dependent ornament

  • Patricia R.Y. Backwell
  • Michael D. Jennions
  • John H. Christy
  • Ursula Schober
Article

Abstract

In the fiddler crab (Uca beebei) males build a small mud pillar next to their burrow which increases their attractiveness to females. Three hypotheses were tested to explain inter-male variation in pillar-building. (1) The benefits of pillar-building are density dependent. The experimental addition of vertical structures did not support this hypothesis as there was no change in the level of pillar-building. (2) There are two classes of males (pillar-builders and non-pillar-builders). This could either be due to an alternative mating strategy, or because pillar building is age or size-dependent. There was also no support for this hypothesis. (3) Pillar-building is an honest signal of male quality dependent on body condition. A food supplementation experiment was performed. Addition of food affected several aspects of male behaviour and resulted in a two fold increase in the number of pillars built between control and food treatments (P < 0.001). However, the percentage of males building pillars did not increase significantly. Pillar building in this species has been attributed to sensory exploitation. Our results indicate that a trait which may well have evolved through sensory exploitation also appears to be condition-dependent. We emphasise that showing that an ornament or behaviour is condition-dependent does not necessarily mean that it evolved through “good gene” processes. However, in terms of its current selective value, pillar building may be maintained through female choice because it acts as a signal of male condition.

Key words

Fiddler crabs Condition dependence Sexual selection Handicap principle Sensory exploitation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arak A (1988) Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive attraction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:317–327Google Scholar
  2. Balmford A, Read AF (1991) Testing alternative models of sexual selection through female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 6:274–276Google Scholar
  3. Balmford A, Thomas ALR, Jones IL (1993) Aerodynamics and the evolution of long tails in birds. Nature 361:628–631Google Scholar
  4. Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–809Google Scholar
  5. Bennet-Clark HC, Ewing AW (1967) Stimuli provided by courtship of male Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 215:669–671Google Scholar
  6. Christy JH (1988a) Pillar function in the fiddler crab Uca beebei (I): effects on male spacing and aggression. Ethology 78:53–71Google Scholar
  7. Christy JH (1988b) Pillar function in the fiddler crab Uca beebei (II): competitive courtship signalling. Ethology 78:113–128Google Scholar
  8. Christy JH, Salmon M (1991) Comparative studies of reproductive behavior in mantis shrimps and fiddler crabs. Am Zool 31:329–337Google Scholar
  9. Crane J (1975) Fiddler crabs of the world, Ocypodidae, genus Uca. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Enquist M, Arak A (1993) Selection for exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic preferences. Nature 351:446–448Google Scholar
  11. Evans MR (1991) The size of adornments of male scarlet-tufted malachite sunbirds varies with environmental conditions, as predicted by handicap theory. Anim Behav 42:797–803Google Scholar
  12. Grafen A (1990a) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 44:475–516Google Scholar
  13. Grafen A (1990b) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144: 517–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15Google Scholar
  15. Höglund J, Kalas JA, Fiske P (1992) The costs of secondary sexual characters in the lekking great snipe (Gallingo media). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:309–315Google Scholar
  16. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The handicap principle. Evolution 45: 1431–1442Google Scholar
  17. Jennions MD (1993) Female choice in birds and the cost of long tails. Trends Ecol Evol 8:230–232Google Scholar
  18. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12Google Scholar
  19. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38Google Scholar
  20. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favoured by sexual selection. Amer Nat 124:309–323Google Scholar
  21. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725Google Scholar
  22. Marchetti K (1993) Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence. Nature 362: 149–152Google Scholar
  23. Meyer A, Morissey JM, Schartl M (1994) Recurrent origin of a sexually selected trait in Xiphophorus fishes inferred from a molecular phylogeny. Nature 368:539–542Google Scholar
  24. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Mumme RL (1992) Do helpers increase reproductive success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:319–328Google Scholar
  26. Norris K (1993) Heritable variation in a plumage indicator of viability in male great tits Parus major. Nature 362:537–539Google Scholar
  27. Pomiankowski A (1994) Swordplay and sensory bias. Nature 368: 494–495Google Scholar
  28. Pomiankowski A, Sheridan L (1994) Linked sexiness and choosiness. Trends Ecol Evol 9:242–244Google Scholar
  29. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422–1430Google Scholar
  30. Proctor HC (1991) Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalise on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598Google Scholar
  31. Proctor HC (1992) Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745–752Google Scholar
  32. Reeve HK, Sherman PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Q Rev Biol 68:1–32Google Scholar
  33. Reynolds JD, Gross MR (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan MJ (1985) The Tungara frog. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan MJ (1990) Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 7:157–195Google Scholar
  36. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4-S35Google Scholar
  37. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of signals past. Proc Roy Soc B 340:187–195Google Scholar
  38. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. MacGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sutherland WJ, De Jong MCM (1991) The evolutionary stable strategy for secondary sexual characters. Behav Ecol 2:16–20Google Scholar
  40. Weary DM, Guilford TC, Weisman RG (1993) A product of discriminative learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate male traits. Evolution 47:333–336Google Scholar
  41. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Zahavi A (1977) The cost of honesty: further remarks on the handicap principle. J Theor Biol 67:603–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeil J, Nalbach G, Nalbach HO (1986) Eyes, eye stalks and the visual world of semi-terrestrial crabs. J Comp Physiol A 159: 801–811Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia R.Y. Backwell
    • 2
  • Michael D. Jennions
    • 1
  • John H. Christy
    • 2
  • Ursula Schober
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations