The evolution of dynamic and flexible courtship displays that reveal individual quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sexual selection is a major force shaping morphological and behavioral diversity. Existing theory focuses on courtship display traits such as morphological ornaments whose costs and benefits are assumed be to fixed across individuals’ lifetimes. In contrast, empirically observed displays are often inherently dynamic, as vividly illustrated by the acrobatic dances, loud vocalizations, and vigorous motor displays involved in courtship behavior across a broad range of taxa. One empirically observed form of display flexibility occurs when signalers adjust their courtship investment based on the number of rival signalers. The predictions of established sexual selection theory cannot readily be extended to such displays because display expression varies between courtship events, such that any given display may not reliably reflect signaler quality. We thus lack an understanding of how dynamic displays coevolve with sexual preferences and how signalers should tactically adjust their display investment across multiple courtship opportunities. To address these questions, we extended an established model of the coevolution of a female sexual preference and a male display trait to allow for flexible, dynamic displays. We find that such a display can coevolve with a sexual preference away from their naturally selected optima, though display intensity is a weaker signal of male quality than for non-flexible displays. Furthermore, we find that males evolve to decrease their display investment when displaying alongside more rivals. This research represents a first step towards generalizing the findings of sexual selection theory to account for the ubiquitous dynamism of animal courtship. Significance statement Animal courtship displays are typically costly for survival: songs attract predators; dances are exhausting; extravagant plumage is cumbersome. Because of the trade-off between mating benefits and survival costs, displaying individuals often vary their displays across time, courting more intensely when the potential benefit is higher or the cost is lower. Despite the ubiquity of such adjustment in nature, existing theory cannot account for how this flexibility might affect the coevolution of displays with sexual preferences, nor for the patterns of tactical display adjustment that might result, because those models treat displays as static, with fixed costs and benefits. Generalizing a well-studied model of sexual selection, we find that a static display and a flexible display can evolve under similar conditions. Our model predicts that courtship should be less intense when more competitors are present.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".