Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 9, pp 1513–1522 | Cite as

Information content is more important than sensory system or physical distance in guiding the long-term evolutionary relationships between signaling modalities in Sceloporus lizards

  • Alison G. Ossip-Klein
  • Jesualdo A. Fuentes
  • Diana K. Hews
  • Emília P. Martins
Original Paper

Abstract

Long-term signal evolution is shaped by a variety of selective pressures including the need to convey additional information or to improve message transfer to specific receivers or through multiple environments. Here, we test the relative importance of information and sensory modality in shaping the long-term evolution of multimodal signals in Sceloporus lizards. To broadcast identity at territorial boundaries, male Sceloporus use both visual motion (headbob) and chemical signals, whereas they use color (blue belly patches) to signal aggression. Using modern phylogenetic comparative methods, we found a negative correlation between evolutionary changes in visual motion (headbobs) and chemical (femoral pore) signals, but only indirect ties between the evolution of color and motion signals (both of which are perceived visually) through viviparity, and no evidence of an evolutionary link between color and chemical signals. We also find a negative correlation between arboreality and chemical signals. Thus, information content (in this case, broadcasting individual identity versus signaling aggression) appears to play a more important role than sensory modality or physical distance in guiding long-term signal evolution. Additional insights into the underlying evolutionary processes are described, illustrating the utility of a phylogenetic approach.

Keywords

Phylogenetic comparative methods Sceloporus lizards Multimodal signaling Communication Trade-offs 

References

  1. Alberts AC (1993) Chemical and behavioral studies of femoral gland secretions in Iguanid lizards. Brain Behav Evolut 41:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bro-Jørgensen J (2010) Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol Evol 25:292–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter CC (1978) Comparative display behavior in the genus Sceloporus (Iguanidae). Contr Biol Geol Milw Publ Mus 18:1–71Google Scholar
  4. Clark D, Roberts J, Rector M, Uetz GW (2011) Spectral reflectance and communication in the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz): simultaneous crypsis and background contrast in visual signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1237–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper JWE (1987) Social significance of ventrolateral coloration in the fence lizard, Sceloporus undulatus. Anim Behav 35:526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elias DO, Maddison WP, Peckmezian C, Girard MB, Mason AC (2012) Orchestrating the score: complex multimodal courtship in the Habronattus coecatus group of Habronattus jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Biol J Linn Soc 105:522–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felsenstein J (2012) A comparative method for both discrete and continuous characters using the threshold model. Am Nat 179:145–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson JS, Uetz GW (2008) Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success. Anim Behav 75:1253–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon SD, Uetz GW (2011) Multimodal communication of wolf spiders on different substrates: evidence for behavioural plasticity. Anim Behav 81:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grether GF, Kolluru GR, Nersissian K (2004) Individual colour patches as multicomponent signals. Biol Rev 79:583–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guillette LJ Jr, Jones RE, Fitzgerald KT, Smith HM (1980) Evolution of viviparity in the lizard genus Sceloporus. Herpetologica 36:201–215Google Scholar
  13. Hansen TF (1997) Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen TF, Pienaar J, Orzack SH (2008) A comparative method for studying adaptation to a randomly evolving environment. Evolution 62:1965–1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hews DK, Benard MF (2001) Negative association between conspicuous visual display and chemosensory behavior in two Phrynosomatid lizards. Ethology 107:839–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hews DK, Date P, Hara E, Castellano MJ (2011) Field presentation of male secretions alters social display in Sceloporus virgatus but not S. undulatus lizards. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1403–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hews DK, Moore MC (1995) Influence of androgens on differentiation of secondary sex characters in tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus. Gen Comp Endocrinol 97:86–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hews DK, Quinn VS (2003) Endocrinology of species differences in sexually dimorphic signals and aggression: using the organization and activation model in a phylogenetic framework. In: Fox SF, Baird T, McCoy J (eds) Lizard social behavior. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 253–277Google Scholar
  19. Housworth EA, Martins EP, Lynch M (2004) The phylogenetic mixed model. Am Nat 163:84–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacob S, Rieucau G, Heeb P (2011) Multimodal begging signals reflect independent indices of nestling condition in European starlings. Behav Ecol 22:1249–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson MA, Wade J (2010) Behavioural display systems across nine Anolis lizard species: sexual dimorphisms in structure and function. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1711–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaczorowski RL, Leonard AS, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2012) Floral signal complexity as a possible adaptation to environmental variability: a test using nectar-foraging bumblebees, Bombus impatiens. Anim Behav 83:905–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohler G, Heimws P (2002) Stachelleguane. Lebensweise, Pflege, Zucht. Herpeton Verlag, OffenbachGoogle Scholar
  24. Leaché AD (2010) Species trees for spiny lizards (genus Sceloporus): identifying points of concordance and conflict between nuclear and mitochondrial data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 54:162–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch M (1991) Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martins EP (1991) Individual and sex differences in the use of the push-up display by the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim Behav 41:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins EP (1993a) A comparative study of the evolution of Sceloporus push-up displays. Am Nat 142:994–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martins EP (1993b) Contextual use of the push-up display by the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Anim Behav 45:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins EP (1996) Conducting phylogenetic comparative studies when the phylogeny is not known. Evolution 50:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martins EP (2004) COMPARE, version 4.6b. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Distributed by the author at http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  31. Martins EP, Diniz-Filho JAF, Housworth EA (2002) Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Martins EP, Garland T Jr (1991) Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45:534–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martins EP, Hansen TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am Nat 149:646–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martins EP, Ord TJ, Davenport S (2005) Combining motions into complex displays: playbacks with a robotic lizard. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martins EP, Ord TJ, Slaven J, Wright J, Housworth E (2006) Individual, sexual, seasonal, and temporal variation in the amount of sagebrush lizard scent marks. J Chem Ecol 32:881–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Meara BC, Ané C, Sanderson MJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution using likelihood. Evolution 60:922–933PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Loghlen AL, Rothstein SI (2010) Multimodal signalling in a songbird: male audiovisual displays vary significantly by social context in brown-headed cowbirds. Anim Behav 79:1285–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ord TJ, Charles GK, Hofer RK (2011) The evolution of alternative adaptive strategies for effective communication in noisy environments. Am Nat 177:54–64Google Scholar
  39. Ord TJ, Stamps JA, Losos JB (2010) Adaptation and plasticity of animal communication in fluctuating environments. Evolution 64:3134–3148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pagel M (1994) Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pagel M, Meade A (2006) Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible–jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Am Nat 167:808–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pagel M, Meade A (2011) BayesTraits v1.0. School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK. Available at: www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk.
  43. Painter D, Jennings DH, Moore MC (2002) Placental buffering of maternal steroid hormone effects on fetal and yolk hormone levels: a comparative study of a viviparous lizard, Sceloporus jarrovi, and an oviparous lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. Gen Comp Endocrinol 127:105–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Partan SR, Marler P (2005) Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am Nat 166:231–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Price JJ, Clapp MK, Omland KE (2011) Where have all the trees gone? The declining use of phylogenies in animal behaviour journals. Anim Behav 81:667–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quinn VS, Hews DK (2000) Signals and behavioural responses are not coupled in males: aggression affected by replacement of an evolutionarily lost colour signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:755–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quinn VS, Hews DK (2003) Positive relationship between abdominal coloration and dermal melanin density in Phrynosomatid lizards. Copeia 2003:858–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quinn VS, Hews DK (2010) The evolutionary decoupling of behavioral and color cues in a multicomponent signal in two Sceloporus lizards. Ethology 116:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ratcliffe JM, Nydam ML (2008) Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world. Nature 455:96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rendall D, Owren MJ, Ryan MJ (2009) What do animal signals mean? Anim Behav 78:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ronquist F (2004) Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:475–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadeghi S, Mitchell D, Cullen K (2009) Different neural strategies for multimodal integration: comparison of two macaque monkey species. Exp Brain Res 195:45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sites JW, Reeder TW, Wiens JJ (2011) Phylogenetic insights on evolutionary novelties in lizards and snakes: sex, birth, bodies, niches, and venom. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 42:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith CL, Taylor A, Evans CS (2011) Tactical multimodal signalling in birds: facultative variation in signal modality reveals sensitivity to social costs. Anim Behav 82:521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith HM (1939) The Mexican and Central American lizards of the genus Sceloporus, vol 26. Field Museum of Natural History, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Stynoski J, Noble V (2012) To beg or to freeze: multimodal sensory integration directs behavior in a tadpole. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sullivan-Beckers L, Hebets EA (2011) Modality-specific experience with female feedback increases the efficacy of courtship signalling in male wolf spiders. Anim Behav 82:1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson JT, Bissell AN, Martins EP (2008) Inhibitory interactions between multimodal behavioural responses may influence the evolution of complex signals. Anim Behav 76:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Uetz GW, Clark D, Roberts J, Rector M (2011) Effect of visual background complexity and light level on the detection of visual signals of male Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders by female conspecifics. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uetz GW, Roberts JA, Taylor PW (2009) Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals. Anim Behav 78:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb RG (2009) Crevice spiny lizard. In: Jones LLC, Lovich RE (eds) Lizards of the American Southwest: a photographic field guide. Rio Nuevo, Tucson, pp 246–249Google Scholar
  62. Wiens JJ (1999) Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phrynosomatid lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1529–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiens JJ, Kuczynski CA, Arif S, Reeder TW (2010) Phylogenetic relationships of phrynosomatid lizards based on nuclear and mitochondrial data, and a revised phylogeny for Sceloporus. Mol Phylogenet Evol 54:150–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA (2012) Seismic signaling is crucial for female mate choice in a multimodal signaling wolf spider. Ethology 118:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison G. Ossip-Klein
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jesualdo A. Fuentes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Diana K. Hews
    • 3
  • Emília P. Martins
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Integrative Study of Animal BehaviorIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteUSA

Personalised recommendations