Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 11, pp 1593–1602 | Cite as

Movement signal choreography unaffected by receiver distance in the Australian Jacky lizard, Amphibolurus muricatus

Original Paper


Theory explains the structure of animal signals in the context of the receiver sensory systems, the environment through which signals travel and their information content. The influence of signalling context on movement-based signalling strategies is becoming clearer. Building upon recent findings that demonstrated changing environmental plant motion conditions resulted in a change of signalling strategy by the Australian lizard Amphibolurus muricatus, we examined whether receiver distance also influences signalling strategies. We found that signalling lizards did not modify their introductory tail flicking in response to distant viewers in the absence of competing, irrelevant plant image motion despite significant reductions in signal structure at the eye of the viewer. The magnitude of resultant effect sizes strongly suggests that receiver distance does not contribute to signalling strategies as much as the presence of motion noise in the environment.


Amphibolurus muricatus Jacky lizard Movement-based signal Receiver distance Signal evolution Signal structure 



Thanks to Elizabeth Allen and Don Sinclair for hosting us during animal collection and Robin and Steven Teding van Berkout for onsite support during the experiment. Thanks also to Tobias Merkle, Jochen Zeil and two anonymous referees for comments on an earlier draft, as well as the Neuroethology group at The Australian National University for constructive feedback. The Australian National University’s Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service approved all housing and experimental procedures. This work was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP0557018) and was hosted by the Edith and Joy London Foundation, Kioloa, NSW, Australia.


  1. Allen E, Sinclair D, Allen S, Peters RA (2009) Amphibolurus muricatus (Jacky lizard). Avian predation. Herpetol Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows M, Smith M, Bussiere L, Jennions MD (2005) Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 59:871–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brumm H, Slater P (2006) Animals can vary signal amplitude with receiver distance: evidence from zebra finch song. Anim Behav 72:699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Couldridge V, van Staaden M (2004) Habitat-dependent transmission of male advertisement calls in bladder grasshoppers (Orthoptera; Pneumoridae). J Exp Biol 207:2777–2786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de la Torre S, Snowdon CT (2002) Environmental correlates of vocal communication of wild pygmy marmosets, Cebuella pygmaea. Anim Behav 63:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dusenbery DB (1992) Sensory ecology: how organisms acquire and respond to information. Freeman, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleishman LJ (1986) Motion detection in the presence or absence of background motion in an Anolis lizard. J Comp Physiol A 159:711–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. How M, Hemmi JM, Zeil J, Peters RA (2008) Claw waving display changes with receiver distance in fiddler crabs, Uca perplexa. Anim Behav 75:1015–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leal M, Fleishman LJ (2002) Evidence for habitat partitioning based on adaptation to environmental light in a pair of sympatric lizard species. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marten K, Marler P (1977) Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalisations: I. Temperate habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marten K, Quine D, Marler P (1977) Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalisations: II. Tropical forest habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:592–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. New STD (2008) Vision in the sleepy lizard (Tiliqua rugosa): retinal organisation, visual acuity and ecological constraints. MSc. thesis, Flinders University, p 130Google Scholar
  15. Ord T, Peters R, Clucas B, Stamps J (2007) Lizards speed up visual displays in noisy motion habitats. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1057–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ord T, Stamps JA (2008) Alert signals enhance animal communication in “noisy” environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:18830–18835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Owen P, Gordon N (2005) The effect of perceived intruder proximity and resident body size on the aggressive responses of male green frogs, Rana clamitans (Anura: Ranidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:736–741Google Scholar
  18. Palombit R (1992) A preliminary study of vocal communication in wild long-tailed macaques (Macaca fasicularis). 2. Potential of calls to regulate intragroup spacing. Int J Primatol 13:183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peters R (2008) Environmental motion delays the detection of movement-based signals. Biol Lett 4:2–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters R (2009) Movement-based signalling and the physical world: modelling the changing perceptual task for receivers. In: Tosh C, Ruxton G (eds) Modelling perception with artificial neural networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Peters R, Evans C (2007) Active space of a movement-based signal: response to the Jacky dragon (Amphibolurus muricatus) display is sensitive to distance, but independent of orientation. J Exp Biol 210:395–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters RA, Ord TJ (2003) Display response of the Jacky dragon, Amphibolurus muricatus (Lacertilia: Agamidae), to intruders: a semi-Markovian process. Austral Ecol 28:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters RA, Clifford CWG, Evans CS (2002) Measuring the structure of dynamic visual signals. Anim Behav 64:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters R, Hemmi J, Zeil J (2007) Signalling against the wind: modifying motion signal structure in response to increased noise. Curr Biol 17:1231–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peters R, Hemmi JM, Zeil J (2008) Image motion environments: background noise for movement-based animal signals. J Comp Physiol A 194:441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language for statistical computing, Vienna. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  27. Richards D, Wiley RH (1980) Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communication. Am Nat 115:381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Römer H (1993) Environmental and biological constraints for the evolution of long-range signalling and hearing in acoustic insects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 340:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stamps JA, Barlow GW (1973) Variation and stereotypy in the displays of Anolis aeneus (Sauria: Iguanidae). Behaviour 47:67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Uy JAC, Endler JA (2004) Modification of the visual background increases the conspicuousness of golden-collared manakin displays. Behav Ecol 15:1003–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1982) Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic communication in birds, volume 1: production, perception, and design features of sounds. Academic, New York, pp 131–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Visual Sciences, Research School of Biological SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, Centre for Fish and Fisheries ResearchMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations