Macroevolutionary patterning of woodpecker drums reveals how sexual selection elaborates signals under constraint

Sexual selection drives elaboration in animal displays used for competition and courtship, but this process is opposed by morphological constraints on signal design. How do interactions between selection and constraint shape display evolution? One possibility is that sexual selection continues exaggeration under constraint by operating differentially on each signal component in complex, modular displays. This is seldom studied on a phylogenetic scale, but we address the issue herein by studying macroevolutionary patterning of woodpecker drum displays. These territorial displays are produced when an individual rapidly hits its bill on a hard surface, and drums vary across species in the number of beats included (length) and the rate of drumbeat production (speed). We report that species body size limits drum speed, but not drum length. As a result of this biomechanical constraint, there is less standing variation in speed than length. We also uncover a positive relationship between sexual size dimorphism and the unconstrained trait (length), but with no effect on speed. This suggests that when morphology limits the exaggeration of one component, sexual selection instead exaggerates the unconstrained trait. Modular displays therefore provide the basis for selection to find novel routes to phenotypic elaboration after previous ones are closed.

[1]  C. Nunn,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in primate aerobic capacity: a phylogenetic test , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[2]  Peter R. Grant,et al.  Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches , 1986 .

[3]  Danielle J. Dodenhoff,et al.  DO WOODPECKER DRUMS ENCODE INFORMATION FOR SPECIES RECOGNITION? , 2001 .

[4]  A. Barron,et al.  A systems approach to animal communication , 2016, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Pierre-Paul Bitton,et al.  Uneven Sampling and the Analysis of Vocal Performance Constraints , 2013, The American Naturalist.

[6]  J. Török Resource partitioning among three woodpecker species Dendrocopos spp. during the breeding season , 1990 .

[7]  The social context of a territorial dispute differentially influences the way individuals in breeding pairs coordinate their aggressive tactics , 2016, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  Eric R. Schuppe,et al.  High‐speed displays encoding motor skill trigger elevated territorial aggression in downy woodpeckers , 2018 .

[9]  Matthew R. Wilkins,et al.  Evolutionary divergence in acoustic signals: causes and consequences. , 2013, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  Meredith C. Miles,et al.  Biogeography predicts macro‐evolutionary patterning of gestural display complexity in a passerine family , 2017, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  R. Prum Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin's really dangerous idea , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  M. Andersson,et al.  SEXUAL SELECTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF SONG , 1986 .

[13]  K. Hughes,et al.  Mating advantage for rare males in wild guppy populations , 2013, Nature.

[14]  B. Cade,et al.  Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles , 1999 .

[15]  J. Tobias,et al.  CORRELATED EVOLUTION OF BEAK MORPHOLOGY AND SONG IN THE NEOTROPICAL WOODCREEPER RADIATION , 2012, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  E. Hebets,et al.  The dominance of seismic signaling and selection for signal complexity in Schizocosa multimodal courtship displays , 2013, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[17]  L. Jenni Das Skelettmuskelsystem des Halses von Buntspecht und MittelspechtDendrocopos major undmedius , 2005, Journal für Ornithologie.

[18]  J. Dale,et al.  Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  M. Pagel Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution , 1999, Nature.

[20]  A. Grafen Biological signals as handicaps. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  J. Podos Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin's finches , 2001, Nature.

[22]  C. Orengo,et al.  A rapid method of protein structure alignment. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[23]  Ryan C. Taylor,et al.  Risks of multimodal signaling: bat predators attend to dynamic motion in frog sexual displays , 2014, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[24]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies and the Comparative Method , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[25]  N. Seddon ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATION AND SPECIES RECOGNITION DRIVES VOCAL EVOLUTION IN NEOTROPICAL SUBOSCINE BIRDS , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  Eileen A Hebets,et al.  New dimensions in animal communication: the case for complexity , 2016, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[27]  J. Endler Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae) , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  Matthew J. Fuxjager,et al.  Select forelimb muscles have evolved superfast contractile speed to support acrobatic social displays , 2016, eLife.

[29]  Yuzhe Liu,et al.  How does a woodpecker work? An impact dynamics approach , 2015 .

[30]  L. Sneddon,et al.  Physiological constraints on contest behaviour , 2007 .

[31]  Matthew J Dufort An augmented supermatrix phylogeny of the avian family Picidae reveals uncertainty deep in the family tree. , 2016, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[32]  J. Byers,et al.  Female mate choice based upon male motor performance , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  R. Prum THE LANDE–KIRKPATRICK MECHANISM IS THE NULL MODEL OF EVOLUTION BY INTERSEXUAL SELECTION: IMPLICATIONS FOR MEANING, HONESTY, AND DESIGN IN INTERSEXUAL SIGNALS , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[35]  T. Székely,et al.  Sexual size dimorphism in birds , 2007 .

[36]  W. Piper,et al.  Male Common Loons Signal Greater Aggressive Motivation By Lengthening Territorial Yodels , 2012 .

[37]  P. Backwell,et al.  Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes , 1996 .

[38]  R. Jovani,et al.  Colony size and foraging range in seabirds , 2016 .

[39]  Tamás Székely,et al.  Avian body sizes in relation to fecundity, mating system, display behavior, and resource sharing , 2007 .

[40]  R. Prum Phylogenetic Tests of Alternative Intersexual Selection Mechanisms: Trait Macroevolution in a Polygynous Clade (Aves: Pipridae) , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[41]  L. Kilham Reproductive Behavior of Red-Bellied Woodpeckers , 1961 .

[42]  T. Garland,et al.  Procedures for the Analysis of Comparative Data Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts , 1992 .

[43]  Liam J. Revell,et al.  phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things) , 2012 .

[44]  Stephen T. Emlen,et al.  An Experimental Analysis of the Parameters of Bird Song Eliciting Species Recognition , 1972 .

[45]  C. Rowe Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  Liam J. Revell,et al.  Size-Correction and Principal Components for Interspecific Comparative Studies , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[47]  Ryan C. Taylor,et al.  Interactions between complex multisensory signal components result in unexpected mate choice responses , 2017, Animal Behaviour.