Predation enhances complexity in the evolution of electric fish signals

Theories of sexual selection assume that predation is a restrictive, simplifying force in the evolution of animal display characters and many empirical studies have shown that predation opposes excessive elaboration of sexually selected traits. In an unexpected turnaround, I show here that predation pressure on neotropical, weakly electric fish (order Gymnotiformes) seems to have selected for greater signal complexity, by favouring characters that have enabled further signal elaboration by sexual selection. Most gymnotiform fish demonstrate adaptations that lower detectability of their electrolocation/communication signals by key predators. A second wave phase added to the ancestral monophasic signal shifts the emitted spectrum above the most sensitive frequencies of electroreceptive predators. By using playback trials with the predatory electric eel (Electrophorus electricus), I show that these biphasic signals are less detectable than the primitive monophasic signals. But sexually mature males of many species in the family Hypopomidae extend the duration of the second phase of their electric signal pulses and further amplify this sexual dimorphism nightly during the peak hours of reproduction. Thus a signal element that evolved for crypsis has itself been modified by sexual selection.

[1]  M. Bennett MODES OF OPERATION OF ELECTRIC ORGANS * , 1961 .

[2]  P. Moller Electric fishes : history and behavior , 1995 .

[3]  A H Bass,et al.  Functional analysis of sexual dimorphism in an electric fish, Hypopomus pinnicaudatus, order Gymnotiformes. , 1990, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[4]  M. Sanders Handbook of Sensory Physiology , 1975 .

[5]  P. Raven,et al.  BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A STUDY IN COEVOLUTION , 1964 .

[6]  C. Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[7]  G. S. Merron Pack-hunting in two species of catfish, Clarias gariepinus and C. ngamensis, in the Okavango delta, Botswana , 1993 .

[8]  A. Meyer,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of the South American electric fishes (order Gymnotiformes) and the evolution of their electrogenic system: a synthesis based on morphology, electrophysiology, and mitochondrial sequence data. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[9]  P. Stoddard,et al.  Plasticity of the electric organ discharge waveform of the electric fish Brachyhypopomus pinnicaudatus I. Quantification of day-night changes , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[10]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[11]  W. Crampton,et al.  ELECTRIC SIGNAL DESIGN AND HABITAT PREFERENCES IN A SPECIES RICH ASSEMBLAGE OF GYMNOTIFORM FISHES FROM THE UPPER AMAZON BASIN , 1998 .

[12]  J. Sullivan A phylogenetic study of the Neotropical hypopomid electric fishes (Gymnotiformes: Rhamphichthyoidea) , 1997 .

[13]  J. Albert,et al.  Sternopygus xingu, a New Species of Electric Fish from Brazil (Teleostei: Gymnotoidei), with Comments on the Phylogenetic Position of Sternopygus , 1996 .

[14]  Robert R. Miller Geographical Distribution of Central American Freshwater Fishes , 1966 .

[15]  M. Hagedorn Ecology and Behavior of a Pulse-type Electric Fish, Hypopomus occidentalis (Gymnotiformes, Hypopomidae), in a Fresh-water Stream in Panama , 1988 .

[16]  H. W. Lissmann On the Function and Evolution of Electric Organs in Fish , 1958 .