FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2082031546> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2082031546 endingPage "R370" @default.
• W2082031546 startingPage "R368" @default.
• W2082031546 abstract "A recent study has found that differences in a male trait, considered a textbook example of sexual selection, are in fact due to naturally selected variation in the aerodynamic optimum for each individual. A recent study has found that differences in a male trait, considered a textbook example of sexual selection, are in fact due to naturally selected variation in the aerodynamic optimum for each individual. The trouble with Darwinian sexual selection is that it appears to contradict predictions of Darwinian natural selection: sexually selected traits are considered to be costly, while naturally selected traits are considered to be beneficial in terms of survival-related fitness [1Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London1859Google Scholar, 2Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London1871Crossref Google Scholar]. Both are predicted to increase the lifetime reproductive success of individuals. Traditional approaches in evolutionary biology have assumed that sexual selection operates on most traits that are sexually dimorphic and that reduce the foraging or survival success of its bearers (reviewed in [3Andersson M. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton1994Crossref Google Scholar]). Thus, sex differences of an ornamental trait must be under sexual selection and convey information to potential mates and competitors in the population about the individual's quality, status, and fighting ability. Yet, until a study reported in this issue of Current Biology[4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar], the assumption about sexual selection being the primary mechanism underlying variation between individuals in ornamental traits has remained untested. The reality faced by anyone studying phenotype is that traits that serve an individual in both mating and non-mating contexts may have both naturally and sexually selected components. Although, at times, differences between the mechanisms are hotly debated [3Andersson M. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton1994Crossref Google Scholar, 5Andersson M. Simmons L.W. Sexual selection and mate choice.Trends in Ecol. Evol. 2006; 21: 296-302Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (726) Google Scholar], various models of sexual selection predict that it is the sexually selected portion of the trait in question that has evolved to signal individual quality, because it provides useful information to an audience interested in sorting out potential mates (intersexual mate choice) and true competitors in the bunch (intrasexual competition [3Andersson M. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton1994Crossref Google Scholar]). It is easy to see how peacock trains and loud birdsong all represent classically sexually selected traits, in that these components of the phenotype do little to increase the day-to-day survival or foraging success of individuals, and instead represent a hazard through attracting predators and reducing the chances of escape. So what about those traits that are used to improve the survival of individuals, or their young, but that are also used by potential mates to assess indirect or direct benefits of mate choice? For instance, nest architecture is the basis for mate choice in Baya Weavers Ploceus philippinus (mating investment, sexual selection), but it also indicates sturdier nest structures that protect eggs and young better (parental investment, natural selection [6Quader S. What makes a good nest? Benefits of nest choice to female Baya Weavers (Ploceus philippinus).Auk. 2006; 123: 475-486Crossref Scopus (28) Google Scholar]). Elongated tail streamers of Barn Swallows, Hirundo rustica (Figure 1), are a textbook example of a trait that is involved in mate acquisition and also affects an individual's survival [7Dugatkin L.A. Principles of Animal Behavior. W.W. Norton, New York2004Google Scholar]: individuals with longer streamers suffer from impaired aerodynamic performance which may result in lower foraging efficiency [8Møller A.P. de Lope F. Differential costs of a secondary sexual character: an experimental test of the handicap principle.Evol. 1994; 48: 1676-1683Crossref Scopus (110) Google Scholar, 9Møller A.P. Barbosa A. Cuervo J.J. de Lope F. Merino S. Saino N. Sexual selection and tail streamers in the barn swallow.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 1998; 265: 409-414Crossref Scopus (90) Google Scholar]. But swallows with too short a set of streamers also suffer from reduced flight skills, implying that natural selection already shaped the morphology of this species to accommodate elongation and sexual dimorphism of tail streamers [10Evans M.R. Selection on swallow tail streamers.Nature. 1998; 394: 233-234Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar]. In a novel set of experiments, Bro-Jørgensen et al.[4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar] have taken an individual-based approach to elucidate the extent to which variation in the length between male swallows' streamers either reflects differential ability to withstand the costs of ‘too long’ streamers, as predicted by handicap-models of sexual selection [11Zahavi A. Mate selection — a selection for a handicap.J. Theor. Biol. 1975; 53: 205-214Crossref PubMed Scopus (3260) Google Scholar], or represents the individual-specific match between body size and tail streamer length to optimize flight and foraging performance, as predicted by survival-based natural selection. Ever since the notable experimental studies of Anders Møller in the late 1980s [12Møller A.P. Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow.Nature. 1988; 332: 640-642Crossref Scopus (399) Google Scholar], the elongated tail streamers of barn swallows have been considered a classic example of sexual selection: in several populations of barn swallows, males with longer tail streamers have been shown to enjoy greater reproductive success than their short-streamered neighbours. Although there is mounting evidence of fascinating geographic differences in the extent of sexual selection on this trait across populations [13Smith H.G. Montgomerie R. Põldmaa T. White B.N. Boag P.T. DNA fingerprinting reveals relation between tail ornaments and cuckoldry in barn swallows, Hirundo rustica.Behav. Ecol. 1991; 2: 90-98Crossref Scopus (76) Google Scholar, 14Safran R.J. McGraw K.J. Plumage coloration, not length or symmetry of tail-streamers, is a sexually selected trait in North American barn swallows.Behav. Ecol. 2004; 15: 455-461Crossref Scopus (136) Google Scholar, 15Safran R.J. Neuman C.R. McGraw K.J. Lovette I.J. Dynamic paternity allocation as a function of male color in barn swallows.Science. 2005; 309: 2210-2212Crossref PubMed Scopus (109) Google Scholar, 16Neuman C.R. Safran R.J. Lovette I.J. Mail tail streamer length does not predict apparent or genetic reproductive success in North American barn swallows.J. Avian Biol. 2007; 38: 28-36Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar], using tail length manipulations researchers have shown that males from the European sub-species with streamers that had been experimentally elongated garnered greater reproductive success, both in terms of social pairbonds and genetic measures of reproductive output, compared to males whose streamers were experimentally shortened (for example [17Saino N. Primmer C.R. Ellegren H. Møller A.P. An experimental study of paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica).Evolution. 1997; 51: 562-570Crossref Google Scholar]). But tail streamers are also critical for barn swallow flight performance, as they need to function efficiently for this aerial insectivore. One needs to look no further than female and juvenile barn swallows — they too exhibit extensively forked tails used in flight control. Evans and colleagues, in a series of publications [10Evans M.R. Selection on swallow tail streamers.Nature. 1998; 394: 233-234Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar, 18Buchanan K.L. Evans M.R. The effect of tail streamer length on aerodynamic performance in the barn swallow.Behav. Ecol. 2000; 11: 228-238Crossref Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 19Rowe L.V. Evans M.R. Buchanan K.L. The function and evolution of the tail streamer in hirundines.Behav. Ecol. 2001; 12: 157-163Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar] culminating in the most recent work published in this issue [4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar], have addressed this primary question: what is the underlying evolutionary cause of tail streamer length variation in barn swallow males? The authors have devised an experimental protocol that allows them to identify the length of the streamers that maximize flight-performance (the naturally selected optimum), and to calculate the extent of exaggeration represented by sexual selection (mate choice for longer tail streamers), by taking the difference of the actual streamer length and the estimated flight-optimising length. Using sophisticated equations, in the new paper [4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar] they then answer the question: does variation in streamer length represent differences in the naturally selected optimum associated with each individuals' phenotype? Or does it represent differences in the sexually selected exaggeration of tail streamers? Through their serial manipulations of the same individuals' tail lengths, Bro-Jørgensen et al.[4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar] worked out the relative importance of natural and sexual selection contributing to the variation in the length of the tail streamer. Specifically, these elegant series of streamer manipulations of the same males were employed to determine each individual's aerodynamic performance tested in a flight maze and in terms of the size of prey captured, to estimate foraging efficiency. The authors' conclusions are surprising, as no evidence was found to support the basic assumption that the sexually selected component of this trait reflects individual variation in some aspects of male quality as an advertisement to choosy females or competitive males. Instead, the authors conclude that the optimal streamer length varies significantly among males, but that the additional component of the streamer — assumed to be caused by sexual selection — does not. This result counters the patterns predicted for variable sex-dimorphic traits under sexual selection. The conclusion is that it is the naturally selected, and not the sexually selected, component of the streamer that conveys information about a male's flight and foraging performance, leaving open the question of why streamers are elongated past this optimal value. In other words, swallow tail streamers are in fact not a true ornament, and variation beyond the naturally selected optima may simply serve to signal the age and sex of the individual (adult male versus female or juvenile). Teasing apart the extent to which variation in a phenotypic trait is the result of natural selection, sexual selection, or both is not a trivial endeavor but the resulting information is critical for determining the evolutionary forces at hand. The compelling results reported by Bro-Jørgensen et al.[4Bro-Jørgensen J. Johnstone R.A. Evans M.R. Uninformative exaggeration of male sexual ornaments in barn swallows.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 850-855Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar] bring to light new questions not only about the information content that individuals may glean from a male's streamer length in a classic study system for sexual selection theory. These results also open doors for investigators to carefully consider experiments that test for relative contributions of natural and sexual selection as explanations for variation in traits used in the context of female mate choice and male–male competition. Previously, all models of sexual selection made the assumption that variation in ornamental traits are the result of mate-acquisition behaviours, but this new study forces us to adopt a broader perspective." @default.
• W2082031546 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2082031546 creator A5008890500 @default.
• W2082031546 creator A5087013143 @default.
• W2082031546 date "2007-05-01" @default.
• W2082031546 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2082031546 title "Evolutionary Biology: Variation Isn't Always Sexy" @default.
• W2082031546 cites W1514808703 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W1580235415 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W1978703916 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W1993168254 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2031149619 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2091488615 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2099028624 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2114205602 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2131119446 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2141047310 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2141784809 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2147602211 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2150460060 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2157595840 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2161899020 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2323326572 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2334247097 @default.
• W2082031546 cites W2883512297 @default.
• W2082031546 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.041" @default.
• W2082031546 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17502092" @default.
• W2082031546 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2082031546 type Work @default.
• W2082031546 sameAs 2082031546 @default.
• W2082031546 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2082031546 countsByYear W20820315462012 @default.
• W2082031546 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2082031546 hasAuthorship W2082031546A5008890500 @default.
• W2082031546 hasAuthorship W2082031546A5087013143 @default.
• W2082031546 hasBestOaLocation W20820315461 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C2778334786 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C44870925 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConcept C90856448 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C121332964 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C2778334786 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C44870925 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C78458016 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C86803240 @default.
• W2082031546 hasConceptScore W2082031546C90856448 @default.
• W2082031546 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W2082031546 hasLocation W20820315461 @default.
• W2082031546 hasLocation W20820315462 @default.
• W2082031546 hasOpenAccess W2082031546 @default.
• W2082031546 hasPrimaryLocation W20820315461 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2028262814 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2028765119 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2139858417 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2169271359 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2306503435 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2316554681 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2328669855 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W2333274167 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W4235720450 @default.
• W2082031546 hasRelatedWork W4321370929 @default.
• W2082031546 hasVolume "17" @default.
• W2082031546 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2082031546 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2082031546 magId "2082031546" @default.
• W2082031546 workType "article" @default.