The cost of reliable signaling: Experimental evidence for predictable variation among males in a cost-benefit trade-off between sexually selected traits

Minoru Murai*, Patricia R.Y. Backwell, Michael D. Jennions

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    24 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Claw size of male fiddler crabs, Uca perplexa appears to be a target of female choice that increases the likelihood a female will initially approach a male. Here we show that a behavioral display trait, the maximum height that the tip of the claw reaches during a courtship wave, is a strong correlate of the subsequent likelihood that a female will visit a male's burrow (which is a prerequisite for a burrow mating). We experimentally manipulated claw mass, to test whether there is a trade-off between claw mass and wave height. Males with a metal weight added to their claw showed a large reduction in wave height, whereas control males (plastic added) showed no net change in wave height. There is therefore a trade-off between these two sexually selected traits (claw size and wave display). More importantly, the greater the initial wave height the smaller the subsequent decline in wave height. Assuming that variation in wave height is an index of quality, this variation in the cost-benefit trade-off is consistent with the requirements of a signaling system that conforms to the handicap principle when fitness is the multiplicative product of different fitness components. We conclude by discussing the ongoing difficulties in testing the handicap principle.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2363-2371
    Number of pages9
    JournalEvolution
    Volume63
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Sept 2009

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The cost of reliable signaling: Experimental evidence for predictable variation among males in a cost-benefit trade-off between sexually selected traits'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this