Modeling Complex Phenotypes: Generalized Linear Models Using Spectrogram Predictors of Animal Communication Signals

A major goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the dynamics of natural selection within populations. The strength and direction of selection can be described by regressing relative fitness measurements on organismal traits of ecological significance. However, many important evolutionary characteristics of organisms are complex, and have correspondingly complex relationships to fitness. Secondary sexual characteristics such as mating displays are prime examples of complex traits with important consequences for reproductive success. Typically, researchers atomize sexual traits such as mating signals into a set of measurements including pitch and duration, in order to include them in a statistical analysis. However, these researcher-defined measurements are unlikely to capture all of the relevant phenotypic variation, especially when the sources of selection are incompletely known. In order to accommodate this complexity we propose a Bayesian dimension-reduced spectrogram generalized linear model that directly incorporates representations of the entire phenotype (one-dimensional acoustic signal) into the model as a predictor while accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty. The first stage of dimension reduction is achieved by treating the spectrogram as an "image" and finding its corresponding empirical orthogonal functions. Subsequently, further dimension reduction is accomplished through model selection using stochastic search variable selection. Thus, the model we develop characterizes key aspects of the acoustic signal that influence sexual selection while alleviating the need to extract higher-level signal traits a priori. This facet of our approach is fundamental and has the potential to provide additional biological insight, as is illustrated in our analysis.

[1]  E. George,et al.  APPROACHES FOR BAYESIAN VARIABLE SELECTION , 1997 .

[2]  S. Chib,et al.  Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data , 1993 .

[3]  B. Cocroft,et al.  Host Shifts , the Evolution of Communication , and Speciation in the Enchenopa binotata Species Complex of Treehoppers , 2007 .

[4]  R. Cocroft,et al.  The Behavioral Ecology of Insect Vibrational Communication , 2005 .

[5]  Bani K. Mallick,et al.  Bayesian Curve Classification Using Wavelets , 2007 .

[6]  Sw. Banerjee,et al.  Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data , 2003 .

[7]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors , 1999 .

[8]  T. Garland,et al.  Selection Experiments as a Tool in Evolutionary and Comparative Physiology: Insights into Complex Traits—an Introduction to the Symposium1 , 2005, Integrative and comparative biology.

[9]  K. Tilmon,et al.  Specialization, Speciation, and Radiation—The Evolutionary Biology of Herbivorous Insects , 2008 .

[10]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  Phenotypic Plasticity and Repeatability in the Mating Signals of Enchenopa Treehoppers, with Implications for Reduced Gene Flow among Host‐Shifted Populations , 2003 .

[12]  R. Cocroft,et al.  VIBRATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION IN THE ENCHENOPA BINOTATA SPECIES COMPLEX OF TREEHOPPERS (HEMIPTERA: MEMBRACIDAE) , 2004, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  R. Meldola Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.

[14]  M. Jennions,et al.  Complex Multivariate Sexual Selection on Male Acoustic Signaling in a Wild Population of Teleogryllus commodus , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[15]  W. Searcy Song repertoire and mate choice in birds , 1992 .

[16]  M. Jennions,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR MULTIVARIATE STABILIZING SEXUAL SELECTION , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  E. George,et al.  Journal of the American Statistical Association is currently published by American Statistical Association. , 2007 .

[18]  P. Reiss,et al.  Functional Principal Component Regression and Functional Partial Least Squares , 2007 .

[19]  Bernard W. Silverman,et al.  Functional Data Analysis , 1997 .

[20]  T. Mitchell-Olds,et al.  REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NATURAL SELECTION: STATISTICAL INFERENCE AND BIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  M. Ryan,et al.  SEXUAL SELECTION IN FEMALE PERCEPTUAL SPACE: HOW FEMALE TUNGARA FROGS PERCEIVE AND RESPOND TO COMPLEX POPULATION VARIATION IN ACOUSTIC MATING SIGNALS , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  R. Cocroft,et al.  Vibratory Communication in Treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae) , 2005 .

[23]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1992 .

[24]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Multivariate Analysis , 1958, Nature.

[25]  M. Björklund Variation and selection — what are we measuring? , 2003 .

[26]  J. M. Hoekstra,et al.  The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[27]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  Introduction , 2010, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[28]  Ofer Tchernichovski,et al.  Characterizing Animal Behavior through Audio and Video Signal Processing , 2007, IEEE MultiMedia.

[29]  D. Blumstein Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans : Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[30]  Alan V. Oppenheim,et al.  Discrete-Time Signal Pro-cessing , 1989 .

[31]  Hans-Georg Müller,et al.  Functional Data Analysis , 2016 .

[32]  N. Cressie,et al.  A dimension-reduced approach to space-time Kalman filtering , 1999 .

[33]  R. Cocroft,et al.  Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.