It has been 25 years since the formalization of the Sensory Drive hypothesis was published in the American Naturalist (1992). Since then, there has been an explosion of research identifying its util- ity in contributing to our understanding of inter- and intra-speciﬁc variation in sensory systems and signaling properties. The main tenet of Sensory Drive is that environmental characteristics will inﬂuence the evolutionary trajectory of both sensory (detecting capabilities) and signaling (detect- able features and behaviors) traits in predictable directions. We review the accumulating evidence in 154 studies addressing these questions and categorized their approach in terms of testing for environmental inﬂuence on sensory tuning, signal characteristics, or both. For the subset of studies that examined sensory tuning, there was greater support for Sensory Drive processes shaping vis- ual than auditory tuning, and it was more prevalent in aquatic than terrestrial habitats. Terrestrial habitats and visual traits were the prevalent habitat and sensory modality in the 104 studies show- ing support for environmental inﬂuence on signaling properties. An additional 19 studies that found no supporting evidence for environmental inﬂuence on signaling traits were all based in ter- restrial ecosystems and almost exclusively involved auditory signals. Only 29 studies examined the complete coevolutionary process between sensory and signaling traits and were dominated by ﬁsh visual communication. We discuss biophysical factors that may contribute to the visual and aquatic bias for Sensory Drive evidence, as well as biotic factors that may contribute to the lack of Sensory Drive processes in terrestrial acoustic signaling systems. Key words: animal communication, sensory drive, sensory ecology, sexual selection The Origins of Sensory Drive models was to explain how male signaling traits could become com- When reviewing the evidence or impact of a particular scientific hy- mon within a population. Meanwhile, there was little scientific dis- pothesis, it is useful to provide the historical context in which it origi- cussion put forth for proposing models to predict which traits, or the nated. At the time of the late 1980s, there were three main models for specific features of male traits, that would be selected for under sexual the evolution of female mate choice and the traits that males evolve to selection, nor was there much interest in the effects of the signalling secure matings; Fisher’s runaway, Direct benefits, and Indirect bene- environment and sensory processes. fits (good genes). For all three of these, the specific features of the At the same time that sexual selection models in the 1980s were male signal evolved to either genetically run away with female choice largely blind to sensory inputs, the field of sensory ecology was al- genes, indicate direct benefits to females, or indicate indirect benefits ready well established and fully focused on how signaling traits and to offspring, and the direction of evolution was assumed to be arbi- sensory systems are shaped by environments. Interest in the diversity trary (Bradbury et al.,1987). At the time, the purpose of all of these of birdsong led researchers to test whether differential transmission V C The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press. 471 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact email@example.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 472 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 properties of species’ habitats was at the source of this variation (“the environmental selection hypothesis” Morton 1975; Richards and Wiley 1980). Similarly, visual ecology pioneers such as John Lythgoe, William McFarland, and others were taking a highly quan- titative approach to determine whether visual pigments covaried with different underwater optical environments (McFarland and Munz 1975; Lythgoe 1979). Given the highly predictive power of sensory ecology coupled with the absence of predictive sexual selec- tion models at this time, it is perhaps not surprising that a number of “sensory-”based models for female mate choice/male signaling trait evolution emerged on the scene in the early 1990s. Endler pre- sented Sensory Drive in a discussion during the Dahlem Conference on Sexual Selection in 1987 and a follow-up symposium (Endler 1992a) from which the first formal description of Sensory Drive emerged (Endler 1992b). The idea spread and features of this model were explored in more detail by several people. Among these were Sensory Exploitation (Ryan and Rand 1990); Pre-existing Bias (Basolo 1990, 1995) and Sensory Traps (Christy 1995). All of these “sensory” models can be placed in the Sensory Drive scheme (see Endler and Basolo 1998 for a comparative review of these models), but for the purposes of this review we will restrict our focus to describing and accumulating evidence for the overall Sensory Drive model (Figure 1). While all sensory or receiver bias models contend that male signal evolution is predicted by female sensory biases, only the Sensory Drive model (described in detail below) explicitly Figure 1. The Sensory Drive Model (modiﬁed from Endler 1992b). Steps describes from where those sensory biases arise and include the coded in green represent the sensory component of the Sensory Drive model effects of the environment on both the signaller and senses (Endler as the environment places selective forces on the evolution of sensory sys- 1992b; Endler and Basolo 1998). tem properties for food detection but that also inﬂuences female mate choice criteria. Steps of the model that incorporate sensory exploitation are indi- cated by asteriesk. Steps colored in blue represent the signalling component of the Sensory Drive model describing the evolution of signaling characteris- What is Sensory Drive? tics (ornament features, behavioral displays, and choice of microhabitat for The Sensory Drive model outlined by Endler (1992b, 1993) was a display) that are predictable products of environmental constraints and/or truly comprehensive and predictive model for the origins of commu- responses to environmentally shaped female response biases. Note that the environment is featured in both components (sensory and signal tuning), nication traits. In this model, both signal receiver preference func- hence that box is bi-colored. Except for those arrows with text, the arrows tions and signal transmitter traits are predictable characters based indicate evolutionary relationships. The combined effects of microhabitat on features of a species’ environment. The two main components of choice and behaviour have immediate effects on the signalling environment. a communication dyad (receiver behavior and signaling traits) both Neural crest cells affect colour patterns directly but are developmentally co-evolve under the constraints of the abiotic (physical) and biotic related to other cells in the neural system. This is a new component of (predatory and foraging) environment. While this model built upon Sensory Drive. previous sensory ecology insights into how the environment is likely stimulation); this portion of Sensory Drive is known as Sensory to shape sensory systems and imposes constraints on signal transmis- Exploitation (Endler 1992b; Endler and Basolo 1998). sion properties, it broadened the model to include how these envir- Part of the difficulty in reviewing the presence or absence of sup- onmental features influence key behaviors involved in the sexual port for Sensory Drive is clarifying which portion of the Sensory Drive selection process (mate choice and display behavior) and put it to- model is under examination; and/or whether researchers are able to gether in a larger evolutionary model. To quote directly from Endler test Sensory Drive in its entirety. There are many interacting steps (1992b), “These suites of traits should coevolve in predictable direc- involved in Sensory Drive (Figure 1) and researchers have taken a tions, determined by environmental biophysics, neurobiology and number of different approaches or have emphasized different subsets the genetics of the suites of traits- hence the term ‘sensory drive’.” of steps in the model. To organize our discussion we divide Sensory The critical feature that encapsulates the Sensory Drive hypoth- Drive into two components, sensory and signalling. The sensory com- esis is the environment. As shown in Figure 1 (modified from Endler ponent of the Sensory Drive model predicts a tight correlation between 1992b), the environmental conditions during communication events receiver sensory detection properties and features within a species’ place selective pressures on the sensory systems to detect important physical environment outside the realm of reproduction. The other features in its specific habitat (foraging items or other important major component of the Sensory Drive model, the signaling compo- traits under natural selection) and this influences receiver responses nent, relates to the evolution of signaling traits in the communication during mate choice encounters. Receivers with a sensory bias shaped dyad. It focuses on the strength of environmental constraints in shap- by the biophysical properties of their habitat are likely to detect ing signal evolution to both match environmentally-induced sensory some stimuli better than others. This detection bias will result in biases of the signal receiver and environmental transmission or other receiver biases during mate choice and other choice encounters. habitat features. Here, we present the evidence that has accumulated For example, males that have communication features that match over 25 years in more detail, and examine some of the patterns that a female’s detectability bias will enjoy a detectability advantage are emerging across habitats, modalities, and taxa. (seen, heard, smelled or felt first and/or with the greatest sensory Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 473 Evidence for Sensory Drive steps in Figure 1). These studies found overwhelming support for the sensory component of the sensory drive model with 53 studies iden- Since the early 1990s, much work has examined whether environmen- tifying support of sensory drive while 3 did not. Researchers inter- tal variation can predict variation in the coevolution of sensory sys- ested in testing this component of the Sensory Drive hypothesis have tems and signal design. Recent reviews of the model have found much often compared biophysical measurements from species-specific empirical support for Sensory Drive processes (Cole 2013; Ryan and habitats with physiological measurements of sensory perception Cummings 2013; Price 2017), as well as some studies finding little evi- (e.g., Cummings and Partridge 2001; Cheroske et al. 2003; Fuller dence for its role in signal differentiation (Ey and Fischer 2009; et al. 2003, 2004; Cummings 2004, 2007; Carleton et al. 2005; Malone et al. 2014). In our review, we decided to examine the evi- Seehausen et al. 2008; Fuller and Noa 2010; Veilleux et al. 2013; dence for Sensory Drive in its most classic form — with an emphasis Veilleux and Cummings 2012; Bloch 2015; Bloch et al. 2015a; on environmental influence. Hence, we have limited our review to Sandkam et al. 2015; Tuset et al. 2016). Yet, in order to determine studies that examine whether environmental variation can predict if this detectability bias has pleiotropic effects spilling into the sexual variation in sensory tuning, signal characteristics or both. This means selection domain requires determining if these biases play a role in that several excellent studies that study Sensory Exploitation/Pre- mate choice decisions. A few researchers have comprehensively existing Bias without an environmental component are not included tested this logistically complex question (e.g., Boughman 2001; in this current review (e.g., Basolo 1990; Ryan and Rand 1990; Rodd et al. 2002; Garcia and Ramirez 2005; Maan et al. 2006; Rosenthal and Evans 1998; and others reviewed in Ryan and Seehausen et al. 2008; Arnqvist and Kolm 2010). Cummings 2013). This exclusion is not meant to diminish the import- Of the studies that found evidence for sensory drive processes ance of Sensory Exploitation sensu strictu (the binding glue between influencing sensory system tuning, 57% were in aquatic environ- sensory and signal coevolution) but rather focus our review around ments (Figure 2) and 83% involved vision (Figure 3). These studies the feature that sets this coevolutionary process in motion (according were also dominated by teleost fish (45%) followed by invertebrates to Sensory Drive) — the environment. It also allows us to ask ques- (19%), birds (15%), mammals (9%), and reptiles (8%, Figure 4). tions about habitat bias in Sensory Drive studies, and whether some Using a Freeman–Halton exact test to compare the evidence for and habitats show more support for Sensory Drive processes than others. against the sensory component of sensory drive, we found no signifi- We also ask whether certain components in the Sensory Drive model cant differences in habitat, modality, or taxonomic group (Table 2). are better supported than others; and whether the support for Sensory However, given so few studies in the “no evidence” column, a statis- Drive is biased for specific sensory modalities or taxonomic groups. tical approach to identify patterns is anemic from the beginning. To examine the evidence for Sensory Drive and probe for habi- Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the vast majority of these sen- tat, modality, and taxonomic bias, we conducted a literature review sory studies fell in the domain of vision. Is this because human of empirical studies in the field. For habitat classification, we catego- researchers are visually biased? Or is it because visual tuning is an rized organisms communicating in either terrestrial or aquatic (both easier modality to test in the lab and field? Or does vision marine and freshwater) ecosystems. We searched for taxonomic bias respond more to the optical environment than the auditory senses to by comparing the evidence for and against Sensory Drive between the auditory environment? Patterns could be entirely different in invertebrates and the major vertebrate classes; there were insuffi- other sensory modes, for which there are still few data. cient invertebrate studies to subdivide them by taxa. We restricted our analysis to the two most commonly investigated sensory modal- Environmental tuning mechanisms favor vision over ities — vision and audition (with a modicum of vibration) due to the other modalities? relative paucity of studies in other modes such as electroreception Is there a mechanistic advantage of vision to respond to the environ- and chemoreception. While tests of Sensory Drive within chemo- ment more than the other sensory modalities? Vision scientists have reception are beginning to accumulate (see references within Cole been able to document how responsive the visual pathway is to 2013), they are both few and relatively recent and we encourage fu- environmental inputs in a number of taxa. Since the 1960s, it has ture reviews to probe for habitat or taxonomic biases for chemosen- been well documented that many teleosts employ a mixed chromo- sory Sensory Drive processes. phore strategy (different proportions of A1 and A2 prosthetic Overall, we identified 154 studies that examined the evidence for groups in photoreceptor outer segments) to tune their spectral sensi- some (or most) steps in the sensory drive model. Of these studies, tivity to ambient light conditions (Dartnall et al. 1961; Bridges 132 (86%) found evidence for Sensory Drive and 22 (14%) did not 1965, 1972; Munz and Beatty 1965; Allen 1971; Loew and Dartnall (Tables 1 and 2). While we should expect some portion of this lop- 1976; Levine and MacNichol 1979; Muntz and Mouat 1984). More sided ledger to be driven by a reporting bias for positive results, our recent work has also shown how differential expression of multiple aim with this review is to identify any patterns that are emerging in opsin proteins in photoreceptor outer segments is biased based on terms of where, in what sensory modality, and with what organism optical inputs during development (Carleton and Kocher 2001; do we see greater or lesser support for the sensory drive model. Fuller et al. 2004; Shand et al. 2008; Hofmann et al. 2010) as well We examine the evidence for and against sensory drive in each of as dietary influences (Sandkam et al. 2016). And we have become the main components of sensory drive (sensory and signaling) separ- even more aware that sensory tuning can shift across the course of ately as well as the model as a whole. For each of these examina- a day (Johnson et al. 2013); or as a function of steroid hormonal tions, we then compare the evidence in terms of habitat, modality exposure (e.g., Friesen et al. 2017). and taxonomic support. Note that many of these visual “tuning” mechanisms are restricted to certain aquatic taxa. Some fish and amphibian species Evidence for the environment influencing sensory contain dual chromophores in their retina (A1 and A2). By changing components the ratio of A1:A2 in each photoreceptor’s outersegment, these We identified 56 empirical studies (Table 1) that directly tested the aquatic and semi-aquatic species can tune the absorption maxima of sensory component predictions of the sensory drive model (green the photoreceptor to match properties of their ambient light Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 474 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 Table 1. Characterization of 154 studies evaluating sensory drive processes by taxonomic grouping, sensory modality, habitat, and whether they demonstrated support for the sensory, signaling components of the sensory drive model. Major taxonomic Species group Sense Habitat Sensory Signal Citation group support support Invertebrates Beetle Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes The ´ ry et al. (2008) Invertebrates Bladder grasshoppers Auditory Terrestrial Yes Couldridge and van Staaden (2004) Invertebrates Butterﬂies Vision Terrestrial Yes Rutkowski et al. (2007) Invertebrates Cicadas Auditory Terrestrial No Sueur and Aubin (2003) Invertebrates Crabs Vision Terrestrial Yes Christy (1988) Invertebrates Crabs Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Christy (1995) Invertebrates Crabs Vision Terrestrial Yes Christy et al. (2002) Invertebrates Crabs Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Christy et al. (2003) Invertebrates Crabs Vision Terrestrial Kim et al. (2007) Invertebrates Crickets Auditory Terrestrial No Forrest (1991) Invertebrates Crickets Auditory Terrestrial No Jain and Balakrishnan (2012) Invertebrates Crickets Auditory Terrestrial No Mendelson and Shaw (2005) Invertebrates Green Lacewings Auditory Terrestrial No Noh and Henry (2010) Invertebrates Green Lacewings Auditory Terrestrial No Henry and Wells (2004) Invertebrates Moths Auditory Terrestrial Yes Conner (1987) Invertebrates Water Mites* Vibratory* Aquatic Yes Yes Proctor (1991) Invertebrates Water Mites* Vibratory* Aquatic Yes Yes Proctor (1992) Invertebrates Spiders Vision Terrestrial Yes Scheffer et al. (1996) Invertebrates Spiders Vision Terrestrial Yes Clark (2011) Invertebrates Spiders Vision Terrestrial Yes Wilgers and Hebets (2011) Invertebrates Spiders* Vibratory* Terrestrial Yes Elias et al. (2010) Invertebrates Stomatopods Vision Aquatic Yes Cronin et al. (2001) Invertebrates Stomatopods Vision Aquatic Yes Cronin and Caldwell (2002) Invertebrates Stomatopods Vision Aquatic Yes Cheroske et al. (2003) Invertebrates Stomatopods Vision Aquatic Yes Cheroske et al. (2006) Invertebrates Treehoppers* Vibratory* Terrestrial Yes Sullivan-Beckers and Cocroft (2010) Invertebrates Treehoppers* Vibratory* Terrestrial Yes McNett and Cocroft (2008) Fish Characins Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Arnqvist and Kolm (2010) Fish Lake Malawi Cichlids Vision Aquatic No Smith et al. (2012) Fish Lake Victoria Cichlids Vision Aquatic Yes Seehausen et al. (1997) Fish Lake Victoria Cichlids Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Maan et al. (2017) Fish Lake Victoria Cichlids Vision Aquatic Yes Carleton et al. (2005) Fish Lake Victoria Cichlids Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Seehausen et al. (2008) Fish Lake Victoria Cichlids Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Maan et al. (2006) Fish Goodeids Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Garcia and Ramirez (2005) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Endler (1980) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Endler (1983) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Endler (1987) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Endler (1991) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Endler (1995) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Cole and Endler (2016) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Long and Rosenqvist (1998) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Chapman et al. (2009) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Rodd et al. (2002) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Gamble et al. (2003) Fish Guppies Vision Aquatic Yes Sandkam et al. (2015) Fish Killiﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Fuller et al. (2003) Fish Killiﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Fuller et al. (2005) Fish Killiﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Fuller and Noa (2010) Fish Killiﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Fuller (2002) Fish Killiﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Fuller and Travis (2004) Fish Ornate Rainbow Fish Vision Aquatic Yes Hancox et al. (2013) Fish Reef ﬁsh Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Marshall (2000) Fish Rockﬁsh Auditory Aquatic Yes Tuset et al. (2016) Fish Southern Pygmy perch Vision Aquatic Yes Morrongiello et al. (2010) Fish Sticklebacks Vision Aquatic Yes Reimchen (1989) Fish Sticklebacks Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Boughman (2001) Fish Sticklebacks Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Smith et al. (2004) Fish Sticklebacks Vision Aquatic Yes Veen et al. (2017) Fish Sticklebacks Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Brock et al. (2017) (continued) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 475 Table 1. (continued) Major taxonomic Species group Sense Habitat Sensory Signal Citation group support support Fish Suluwesi Fish Vision Aquatic Yes Gray et al. (2008) Fish Surfperch Vision Aquatic Yes Cummings and Partridge (2001) Fish Surfperch Vision Aquatic Yes Cummings (2004) Fish Surfperch Vision Aquatic Yes Yes Cummings (2007) Amphibians Bolivian frogs Auditory Terrestrial No Bosch and Riva (2004) Amphibians Central Amazon frogs Auditory Terrestrial No Zimmerman (1983) Amphibians Central Amazon frogs Auditory Terrestrial No Kime et al. (2000) Amphibians Chorus frogs Auditory Terrestrial No Malone et al. (2014) Amphibians Concave-eared Torrent frog Auditory Terrestrial Yes Yes Feng et al. (2006) Amphibians Cricket frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Ryan et al. (1990) Amphibians Cricket frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Gamble et al. (2008) Amphibians Cricket frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Witte et al. (2005) Amphibians Green toads Auditory Terrestrial No Castellano et al. (2003) Amphibians Poison Frogs Vision Terrestrial Yes Maan and Cummings (2012) Amphibians Poison Frogs Vision Terrestrial Yes Cummings and Crothers (2013) Amphibians Rock Frogs Vision Terrestrial Yes Grafe et al. (2012) Amphibians Rock skipper frog Auditory Terrestrial Yes Boeckle et al. (2009) Amphibians South American frogs Auditory Terrestrial No Penna and Solis (1998) Amphibians Streambank frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Odendaal et al. (1986) Amphibians Thailand frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Sun and Narins (2005) Amphibians Toads Auditory Terrestrial Yes Ryan and Sullivan (1989) Amphibians Treefrogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Ziegler et al. (2011) Amphibians Tree-hole frogs Auditory Terrestrial Yes Lardner and Lakim (2002) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Sigmund (1983) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Leal and Fleishman (2002) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial No Steinberg and Leal (2016) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Fleishman (1992) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Leal and Fleishman (2004) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes LeBas and Marshall (2000) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Ord et al. (2007) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Peters and Evans (2003) Reptiles Anolis lizards Vision Terrestrial Yes Peters et al. (2007) Reptiles Chameleons Vision Terrestrial Yes Stuart-Fox et al. (2007) Reptiles Chameleons Vision Terrestrial Yes Stuart-Fox and Moussalli (2008) Birds Amazonian birds Auditory Terrestrial Yes Tobias et al. (2010) Birds American redstarts Auditory Terrestrial No Date and Lemon (1993) Birds Antbirds Auditory Terrestrial Yes Nemeth et al. (2001) Birds Blue tits Auditory Terrestrial No Doutrelant and Lambrechts (2001) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Madden and Tanner (2003) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial Yes Yes Endler and Day (2006) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial Yes Doucet and Montgomerie (2003) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial Yes Endler et al. (2010) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial Yes Kelley and Endler (2012) Birds Bowerbirds Vision Terrestrial No Borgia and Keagy (2006) Birds Carolina Wren Auditory Terrestrial Yes Gish and Morton (1981) Birds Chickens Vision Terrestrial Yes Hart et al. (2006) Birds Finches Auditory Terrestrial Yes Snell-Rood and Badyaev (2008) Birds Finches Auditory Terrestrial No Podos (2010) Birds Flycatchers Auditory Terrestrial Yes Francis et al. (2011) Birds Forest Birds Auditory Terrestrial Yes Ryan and Brenowitz (1985) Birds Forest Birds Vision Terrestrial Yes Endler and The ´ ry (1996) Birds Forest Birds Vision Terrestrial Yes Gomez and The ´ ry (2004) Birds Forest Birds Vision Terrestrial Yes Gomez and The ´ ry, 2007. Birds Forest Birds Vision Terrestrial Yes Uy and Stein (2007) Birds Great tits Auditory Terrestrial Yes Yes Mockford and Marshall (2009) Birds Great tits Auditory Terrestrial Yes Slabbekoorn and Peet (2003) Birds Great tits Auditory Terrestrial Yes Slabbekoorn and der Boer-Vissor (2006) Birds Green hylia Auditory Terrestrial Yes Kirschel et al. (2009) Birds Grey breasted wood wren Auditory Terrestrial Yes Dingle et al. (2008) Birds House ﬁnches Auditory Terrestrial Yes Bermudez-Cuamatzin et al. (2011) Birds Juncos Auditory Terrestrial Yes Slabbekoorn et al. (2007) (continued) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 476 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 Table 1. (continued) Major taxonomic Species group Sense Habitat Sensory Signal Citation group support support Birds Mannakins Vision Terrestrial Yes Uy and Endler (2004) Birds Mannakins Vision Terrestrial Yes Heindl and Winkler (2003) Birds Nightingales Auditory Terrestrial Yes Brumm (2004) Birds Nightingales Auditory Terrestrial Yes Sorjonen (1986) Birds North American oscines Auditory Terrestrial Yes Wiley (1991) Birds Robins Auditory Terrestrial Yes Fuller et al. (2007) Birds Silvereyes Auditory Terrestrial Yes Potvin et al. (2011) Birds Song Sparrows Auditory Terrestrial Yes Shy and Morton (1986) Birds Song Sparrows Auditory Terrestrial Yes Patten et al. (2004) Birds South African birds Auditory Terrestrial No Saunders and Slotow (2004) Birds Warblers Vision Terrestrial Yes Marchetti (1993) Birds Warblers Auditory Terrestrial No Fotheringham et al. (1997) Birds Warblers Vision Terrestrial Yes Bloch (2015) Birds Warblers Vision Terrestrial Yes Bloch et al. (2015a) Birds Warblers Vision Terrestrial Yes Bloch et al. (2015b) Birds Warblers Vision Terrestrial Yes Price (2017) Birds White Crown Sparrows Auditory Terrestrial Yes Derryberry (2009) Mammals Baboons Auditory Terrestrial Yes Ey et al. (2009) Mammals Bats Auditory Terrestrial Yes Arlettaz et al. (2001) Mammals Bats Auditory Terrestrial Yes Jacobs et al. (2017) Mammals Bats Auditory Terrestrial No Puechmaille et al. (2011) Mammals Japanese macaques Auditory Terrestrial Yes Sugiura et al. (2006) Mammals Lemurs Vision Terrestrial Yes Veilleux et al. (2013) Mammals Marmots Auditory Terrestrial Yes de la Torre and Snowdon (2002) Mammals Marmots Auditory Terrestrial Yes Daniel and Blumstein (1998) Mammals New World Monkeys Auditory Terrestrial Yes Brumm et al. (2003) Mammals Nocturnal mammals Vision Terrestrial Yes Veilleux and Cummings (2012) Mammals Primates Vision Terrestrial Yes Fernandez and Morris (2007) Mammals Primates Auditory Terrestrial Yes Waser and Waser (1977) Mammals Primates Auditory Terrestrial Yes Mitani and Stuht (1998) Mammals Rain forest monkeys Auditory Terrestrial Yes Brown et al. (1995) Mammals Savannah monkeys Auditory Terrestrial No Brown et al. (1995) Mammals Whales Auditory Aquatic Yes Miller et al. (2000) Asterisk refers to examples of sensory drive that involve the vibratory sensory system (included in this table, but not included for statistical analyses in table 2 owing to small numbers). conditions. Evidence for chromophore mixing to match spectral variation has been attributed to variation in foraging ecology (Hart properties of the underwater environment has been found in fresh- 2001). Furthermore, many birds and reptiles contain pigmented oil water (Bridges 1972; Loew and Dartnall 1976), saltwater droplets in the inner segments of their photoreceptors that reduce (Cummings and Partridge 2001) and anadromous fish (Munz and the intensity and narrow the spectrum of light impinging upon the Beatty 1965; Muntz and Mouat 1984). Furthermore, teleosts have visual pigment in the outer segment (Liebman and Granda 1971; shown greater plasticity than any other taxon in spectral tuning via Bowmaker 1977; Loew et al. 2002); and the amount of this inner differential expression in opsin proteins within their photoreceptors segment colored pigment appears to vary by ambient light intensity (Fuller et al. 2004, 2010; Hofmann et al. 2009, 2010; Carleton (Hart et al. 2006). 2009; Parry et al. 2005). Moreover, marine invertebrates, such as Interestingly, there is robust evidence of olfactory systems being stomatopods, have multiple means to alter spectral sensitivity via tuned to their physical environment. Since early work in the 1970s modification to intrarhabdomal filters, allowing for extensive tuna- (Scholz et al. 1976), we have seen that the fish olfactory epithelium bility (Cronin et al. 2001; Marshall et al. 2007). responds to sensory input by a positive feedback process that allows While terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and salmon to tune their olfactory pathway to detect the olfactory signa- mammals) do not possess as many tuning mechanisms as some of tures of their specific birth tributary (Harden et al. 2006). The olfac- the marine organisms [e.g., only a single chromophore (A1)], they tory system may well be set up to be primed by early developmental still exhibit tunable variation in visual sensitivities. Warblers exhibit conditions to recognize certain odors for later olfactory discrimin- differential opsin expression between species that vary in optical ation (e.g., kin selection, Hinz et al. 2013). In fact, this phenomenon habitats (Bloch 2015), as well as genetic variation in opsin genes may occur in a variety of taxa, including insects at various develop- that is functionally linked to changes in habitat use (Bloch et al. mental stages (Davis and Stamps 2004). 2015a). Birds, in general, exhibit tremendous genetic variation in What is the evidence for sensory tuning to the acoustic environ- UV-sensitive cone opsins (SWS1, Hart and Hunt 2007), and vari- ment? It is clear that the auditory systems from invertebrates ation in the proportion of different photoreceptor cone types. This (Schmidt et al. 2011) to vertebrates (Witte et al. 2005; Bar-Yosef Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 477 Table 2. Results of freeman-halton exact test results comparing dif- ferences in habitat, modality, and taxonomic group characteristics of supporting (yes) and non-supporting (no) studies testing the sensory (A), signaling (B), or both components (C) of the sensory drive model A. Number studies testing the ﬁrst component of Sensory Drive (Sensory systems tuned to environmental parameters) Habitat Yes No P ¼ 0.58 Aquatic 30 1 Terrestrial 23 2 Order Yes No P ¼ 0.31 Invertebrates 10 0 Fishes 24 1 Amphibians 2 0 Reptiles 4 1 Birds 8 0 Mammals 5 1 Sense Yes No P ¼ 0.33 Vision 44 2 Auditory 7 1 B. Number of studies testing the second component of Sensory Drive (Signalling traits varying by environmental parameters) Habitat Yes No P ¼ 0.0036 Aquatic 30 0 Terrestrial 74 19 Order Yes No P ¼ 0.0055 Invertebrates 14 6 Fishes 27 0 Amphibians 12 6 Reptiles 10 0 Birds 32 6 Mammals 9 1 Sense Yes No P < 0.0001 Vision 59 1 Auditory 40 18 Figure 2. Frequency wafﬂe plots of studies supporting and not supporting the C. Number of studies testing both components of Sensory Drive (sensory sensory drive model by aquatic (red) or terrestrial (orange) habitats, including and signaling coevolution) studies that evaluated the sensory component of the sensory drive model, Habitat Yes No n.a. studies that evaluated the signaling components of the sensory drive model, Aquatic 18 0 and studies that evaluate the complete model (both major components). Note Terrestrial 11 0 for color blind readers (either deutanomaly or protanomaly) the aquatic Order Yes No n.a. blocks will appear a dark green and the terrestrial a dark yellow). Invertebrates 5 0 Fishes 16 0 Amphibians 1 0 Evidence for the environment influencing signal Reptiles 4 0 components Birds 3 0 Our literature search found more than twice the number of studies Mammals 0 0 Sense Yes No n.a. exploring the signal components of the sensory drive model than Vision 25 0 the sensory components (Table 1, Figures 2–4). We identified 126 Auditory 2 0 empirical studies that directly tested the signal predictions of the sensory drive model (blue components in Figure 1). Of these studies, Note vibratory studies listed in Table 1 are excluded for this analysis; and n.a. 107 found support for sensory drive while 19 did not. Many refers to inapplicability of the statistical test when only 1 column has numbers researchers have tested this part of sensory drive by examining cor- > 0. relational patterns between male signaling characteristics and envir- onmental parameters (Table 1: Morton 1975; Gish and Morton 1981; Reimchen 1989; Wiley 1991; Fleishman 1992; Marchetti 1993; Seehausen et al. 1997; Slabberkoorn and Peet 2003; Fuller and Nelken 2007; Mockford and Marshall 2009) are modified by 2002; Leal and Fleishman 2004; Gomez and The ´ ry 2004, 2007; Ord background noise levels. Auditory systems can be selectively tuned et al. 2007; Stuart-Fox et al. 2007; Gray et al. 2008; Derryberry to respond to conspecific signals (e.g., auditory imprinting, Batista 2009; Ey et al. 2009; Elias et al. 2010; Morrongiello et al. 2010; et al. 2016), as well as be modified by steroid hormones (Coffin Tobias et al. 2010; Potvin et al. 2011; Hancox et al. 2013; Brock et al. 2012). And some of the best examples of sensory tuning to the et al. 2017); or species-specific detection biases (Madden and environment include the evolution of selective ultrasonic hearing Tanner 2003; Feng et al. 2006; Cummings 2007; Arnqvist and Kolm capabilities among several species preyed upon by echolocating bats 2010), or female mate preference functions (Boughman 2001; Maan (Conner 1987; Windmill et al. 2006). et al. 2006; Seehausen et al. 2008; Kelley and Endler 2012). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 478 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Figure 2). This is a reverse pattern from the relative habitat repre- sentation observed for sensory component studies (Figure 2). Why the difference? The difference may be a matter of human acces- sibility between these two habitats. Or simply driven by the taxo- nomic foci of different researchers (e.g., birds, reptiles, amphibians, and several invertebrate orders are not found in the sea). In addition, acoustic signaling is far more common in the terrestrial environment than the aquatic environment, allowing signal researchers a broader range of signal forms to study. While recent research is beginning to discover the broad range of underwater sounds (Smith and van Staaden 2009; Danley et al. 2012), the field of underwater acoustics is still nascent relative to the long history of studying amphibian, bird, and insect calls in terrestrial habitats. 3.4 Auditory signals and the biotic versus abiotic design pressures The terrestrial environment significantly dominated the category of non-supporting sensory drive studies concentrating on signal components (P ¼ 0.0036, Table 2). The high concentration of these non-supporting studies involved auditory signals, a pattern that sig- nificantly deviated from random expectations (P< 0.0001; Table 2). Why do we find a disproportionate number of auditory studies (of which most are in terrestrial environments) representing this cat- egory of no support for sensory drive? One important feature to consider is how sensory modes differ; auditory signals frequently compete simultaneously with both biotic and abiotic noise. Unlike a visual signal, which is directional and whose detection is based on how it is perceived against highly localized abiotic backgrounds (the adjacent surrounding area), auditory signals are essentially omnidir- ectional so it is more difficult to disentangle them from background noise coming from all directions. It is the competition to stand out against the biotic din of competing signals that has been shown to Figure 3. Frequency wafﬂe plots of studies supporting and not supporting the be the dominant predictor of divergence in a number of different sensory drive model by sensory modality [vision (red), auditory (orange)] auditory signalling systems (e.g., insects: Greenfield 2015; frogs: including studies that evaluated the sensory component of the sensory drive Wollerman and Wiley 2002; Ame ´ zquita et al. 2011; Malone et al. model, studies that evaluated the signaling components of the sensory drive 2014; birds: Luther 2009; Grant and Grant 2010). As a general rule, model, and studies that evaluate the complete model (both major compo- acoustic signal reception has to contend with significantly more bi- nents). Note for color blind readers (either deutanomaly or protanomaly) the vision blocks will appear a dark green and the auditory a dark yellow). otic interactions than visual signals. Hence, signal design in ecosys- tems crowded with auditory communicators should be associated with the biotic environmental soundscape being the better predictor Still others have focused on the time and place of male signaling, to for signal differentiation than the abiotic factors. This has been born determine whether or not signaling behavior maximizes conspicu- out in a number of different animal taxa (Ame ´ zquita et al. 2011; ousness to females (Endler and The ´ ry 1996; Long and Rosenqvist Wilkins et al. 2013). One of the most thorough examinations of 1998; Doucet and Montgomerie 2003; Heindl and Winkler 2003; this principle comes from a large-scale comparison of 82 species of Lardner and Lakim 2002; Uy and Endler 2004; Sun and Narins tropical forest birds, wherein Luther (2009) found that bird song 2005; Heinsohn et al. 2005; Ord et al. 2007; Peters et al. 2007; divergence at dawn chorus was predicted by the composition of Rutkowski et al. 2007; Chapman et al. 2009; Cole and Endler competing songs at each given time interval, rather than physical 2016). location or phylogenetic relatedness. Hence, for auditory signaling, Of the supporting studies, 71% were in terrestrial systems the communication environment is often dominated by biotic fac- (Figure 2), 57% involved visual signaling (Figure 3), and taxonomic tors more than abiotic features, and it is the selective factor driving representation was quite broad (31% birds, 26% fish, 13% inverte- signal diversification in predictable directions. However, auditory brates, 12% amphibians, 10% reptiles, and 9% mammals, evolution may be less predictable than visual signal evolution be- Figure 4). All of the 19 studies finding no support for sensory drive cause the auditory biotic factors are often more variable in space, were in terrestrial environments and 95% (18) involved auditory and in both short-term and evolutionary time, than the largely signals across three taxonomic groups (invertebrates, amphibians, physical factors affecting vision. and birds). Comparing the supporting and non-supporting studies (Table 2), we found significant non-independence of support by Evidence for complete sensory drive model habitat (P ¼ 0.0036), modality (P< 0.0001), and taxon (P ¼ 0.0055). (co-evolution of sensory and signaling features) The terrestrial environment dominated the studies finding Of the 154 studies examining sensory drive processes, 29 tested and support for the signal components of the sensory drive model found support for the complete sensory drive model (Table 1). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 479 Figure 4. Frequency wafﬂe plots of studies supporting and not supporting the sensory drive model by taxonomic group [supporting (red) and non-supporting (orange)] including studies that evaluated the sensory component of the sensory drive model, studies that evaluated the signalling components of the sensory drive model, and studies that evaluate the complete model (both major components). Note for color blind readers (either deutanomaly or protanomaly) the sup- porting blocks will appear a dark green and the non-supporting a dark yellow). Either tests not supporting the full model haven’t yet been conducted well. The Lake Victorian cichlids differ in optical environment due or the authors could not publish their negative results. The support- to a predictable (and unidirectional) change in ambient spectra with ing studies were overwhelmingly focused in visual traits (86%, depth. As species-specific depth ranges increase, ambient spectral Figure 3) with a bias for aquatic environments (62%, Figure 2) and bandwidth becomes narrower and redder. In this system, visual pig- a majority (55%, Figure 4) of fish representatives [followed by ments follow this depth gradient shift as well as predictable shifts in invertebrates (17%), reptiles (14%), birds (10%), and amphibians male color reflectance to contrast against the shift in background (3%)]. spectra (Seehausen et al. 2008) that is also reflected in female choice The close similarity between characteristics of studies finding for these signals (Maan et al. 2006). Meanwhile, in the Lake support for sensory components and the complete sensory drive Malawi cichlids that inhabit clearer waters with a broader spectrum model is not surprising. After all, the sensory drive model starts with of ambient light, the optical environment is less constrained, and the the environment placing a directional change on sensory systems in multiple (6 main opsins) show no correlated pattern with expression specific environmental conditions. To find evidence for the complete and optical environment (Smith et al. 2012). This point was brought Sensory Drive model, one needs to first find a match between sen- up by Endler in the early stages of Sensory Drive (Endler 1993a, sory system bias predicted by environmental constraints and then a 1993b), that environments that are optically constrained to narrow match between signals and that environmentally induced sensory irradiance spectra favor a very specific color component for signal bias. To tackle both components is a daunting endeavor, so it should evolution, whereas environments containing broad spectra are very come as no surprise that the subset of studies that completed this permissive, favouring diversity and making predictions more diffi- challenge is not very large (about 1 per year since the inception of cult. This same principle explains why there is strong support for Sensory Drive). sensory drive in the surfperch fishes optically extreme environment It is also not surprising that the majority of these few “full sup- of an underwater kelp forest (Cummings 2007), yet more muted port studies” are mostly in aquatic environments. Since the early support in birds dwelling in tropical terrestrial forests (Gomez and days of sensory drive, it was noted that aquatic environments place The ´ ry 2004; Maia et al. 2016). a more constraining force on the sensory environment than terres- trial habitats, particularly in visual systems. The water medium, unlike air, differentially absorbs and scatters wavelengths of light as Conclusions and Future Directions a function of depth as well as biotic and abiotic factors in the water medium itself, such as tannins. Phytoplankton and zooplankton There is broad support for the process of sensory drive in a variety blooms along with detritus and other inorganic materials can also of taxa and environments but the distribution among taxa and envi- stain the waters in particular ways, leaving a very limited optical ronments is uneven. The unevenness results from variation among spectrum for the visual senses to process. When spectra are habitats as well as in sensory capacities and sensory biophysics. restricted, then sensory systems have fewer options for tuning and Some combinations restrict what form sensory drive can take, the predicted direction of tuning and signals becomes predictable making it predictable, but other combinations are very permissive, based on first principles. However, when the spectrum is broad, the making predictions difficult or impossible. There may even be a system is permissive and multiple solutions are equally plausible tradeoff between environmental constraints and diversity. This pre- (Endler 1993a,1993b). dicts more diversity of senses and signals, and more diversity of spe- A comparison across the different types of cichlid fish and the cies, in permissive habitats and species with multiple sensory modes optical environments they inhabit demonstrate this principle quite than those with fewer modes or which live in more restrictive Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 480 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 Brumm H, Voss K, Kollmer I, Todt D, 2003. Acoustic communication in habitats. These ideas need testing in as many taxa and habitats as noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. J Exp Biol possible. We also note that there is comparatively little work on sen- 207:443–448. sory drive in chemoreception, vibration reception, and electrorecep- Carleton KL, Kocher TD, 2001. Cone opsin genes of African cichlid ﬁshes: tion, and little work on the evolution of microhabitat and habitat tuning spectral sensitivity by differential gene expression. Mol Biol Evol 18: choice relative to sensory drive. There is clearly a lot more to be 1540–1550. done in exploring the directions and rates of sensory drive. Carleton KL, JWL, Bowmaker JK, Hunt DM, Seehusen O, 2005. Colour vi- sion and speciation in Lake Victoria cichlids of the genus Pundamilia. Mol Ecol 14:4341–4353. References Carleton KL, 2009. Cichlid ﬁsh visual systems: mechanisms of spectral tuning. Allen DM, 1971. Photic control of the proportions of two visual pigments in a Integ Zool 4:75–86. ﬁsh. Vis Res 11:1077–1112. Castellano S, Giacomo C, Ryan MJ, 2003. Call degradation in diploid and Ame ´ zquita A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hodl W, 2011. Acoustic inter- tetrapoid green toads. Biol J Linn Soc 78:11–26. ference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid Chapman BB, Morrell LJ, Krause J, 2009. Plasticity in male courtship behav- frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:17058–17063. iour as a function of light intensity in guppies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63: Arlettaz R, Jones G, Racey PA, 2001. Effects of acoustic clutter on prey detec- 1757–1763. tion in bats. Nature 414:742–745. Cheroske AG, Cronin TW, Caldwell RL, 2003. Adaptive color vision in Arnqvist G, Kolm N, 2010. Population differentiation in the swordtail Pullosquilla litoralis (Stomatopoda, Lysiosquilloidea) associated with spec- characin Corynopoma riisei: a role for sensory drive?. J Evol Biol 23: tral and sensitivity changes in light environment. J Exp Biol 206:373–379. 1907–1918. Cheroske AG, Barber PH, Cronin TW, 2006. Evolutionary variation in the ex- Bar-Yosef O, Nelken I, 2007. The effects of background noise on the neural pression of phenotypically plastic color vision in Caribbean mantis shrimp responses to natural sounds in cat primary auditory cortex. Front Comput genus Neogonodactylus. Mar Biol 150:213–220. Neurosci 1:3. Christy JH, 1988. Pillar function in the ﬁddler crab Uca beebei (II): competi- Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in tive courtship signaling. Ethology 78:113–128. swordtail ﬁsh. Science 250:808–810. Christy JH, 1995. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am Basolo AL, 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in Nat 141:171–181. sexual selection. Proc R Soc B 259:307–311. Christy JH, Backwell PRY, Goshima S, Kreuter T, 2002. Sexual selction for Batista G, Johnson JL, Dominguez E, Costa-Mattioli M, Pena JL, 2016. structure building by courting male ﬁddler crabs; an experimental study of Translational control of auditory imprinting and structural plasticity by behavioral mechanisms. Behav Ecol 13:366–74. elF2a. eLife 5:e17197. Christy JH, Baum JK, Backwell PRY, 2003. Attractiveness of sand hoods built Bermudez-Cuamatzin E, Rios-Chelen A, Gil D, Macias Garcia C, 2011. by courting male ﬁddler crabs Uca musica: test of a sensory trap hypothesis. Experimental evidence for real-time song frequency shift in response to Anim Behav 66:89–94. urban noise in a passarine bird. Biol Lett 7:36–38. Clark DL, 2011. Spectral reﬂectance and communication in the wolf spider Bloch NI, 2015. Evolution of opsin expression in birds driven by sexual selec- Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz): simultaneous crypsis and background contrast tion and habitat. Proc Roy Soc B 282:20142321. in visual signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1237–1247. Bloch NI, Morrow JM, Chang BSW, Price TD, 2015a. SWS2 visual pigment Cofﬁn AB, Mohr RA, Sisneros JA, 2012. Saccular-speciﬁc hair cell addition evolution as a test of historically contingent patterns of plumage color evo- correlates with reproductive state-dependent changes in the auditory saccu- lution in warblers. Evolution 69:341–356. lar sensitivity of a vocal ﬁsh. J Neurosci 32:366–1376. Bloch NI, Price TD, Change BSW, 2015b. Evolutionary dynamics of Rh2 Cole GL, 2013. Lost in translation: adaptation of mating signals in changing opsins in birds demonstrate an episode of accelerated evolution in the New environments. Spr Sci Rev 1:25–40. World warblers Setophaga. Mol Ecol 24:2449–2462. Cole GL, Endler JA, 2016. Male courtship decisions are inﬂuenced by light en- Boeckle M, Preininger D, Ho ¨ dl W, 2009. Communication in noisy environ- vironment and female receptivity. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 283:20160861. ments: acoustic signals of Staurois latopalmatus Boulenger 1887. Conner WE, 1987. Ultrasound: its role in the courtship of the arctiid moth Herpetologica 65:154–165. Cycnia tenera. Cell Mol Life Sci 43:1029–1031. Borgia G, Keagy J, 2006. An inverse relationship between decoration and food Couldridge VC, van Staaden MJ, 2004. Habitat-dependent transmission of colour preferences in satin bowerbirds does not support the sensory drive male advertisement calls in bladder grasshoppers (Orthoptera: pneumori- hypothesis. Anim Behav 72:1125–1133. dae). J Exp Biol 207:2777–2786. Bosch J, De la Riva I, 2004. Are frog calls modulated by the environment? An Cronin TW, Caldwell RI, Marchsall J, 2001. Tunable colour vision in amantis analysis with anuran species from Bolivia. Can J Zool 82:880–888. shrimp. Nature 411:547–548. Boughman JW, 2001. Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isola- Cronin TW, Caldwell RL, 2002. Tuning of photoreceptor function in three tion in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948. mantis shrimp species that inhabit a range of depths. II. Filter pigments. Bowmaker JK, 1977. The visual pigments, oil droplets and spectra sensitivity J Comp Physiol A 188:187–197. of the pigeon. Vis Res 17:1129–1138. Cummings ME, Partridge J, 2001. Visual pigments and optical habitats Bradbury JW, Andersson MB, Heisler L, 1987. Sexual Selection: Testing the of surfperch (Embiotocidae) in the California kelp forest. J, Comp Physiol A Alternatives. Berlin: Wiley. 187:875–889. Bridges CDB, 1965. Variability and relationship of ﬁsh visual pigments. Vis Cummings ME, 2004. Modelling divergence in luminance and chromatic Res 5:239–251. detection performances across measured divergence in surfperch Bridges CDB, 1972. The rhodopsin-porphyropsin visual system. In: Dartnall (Embiotocidae) habitats. Vis Res 44:1127–1145. HJA, editor. Handbook of Sensory Physiology VII. Berlin, Germany: Cummings ME, 2007. Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surf- Springer. 417–480. perch. Evolution 61:530–545. Brock CD, Cummings ME, Bolnick DI, 2017. Phenotypic plasticity drives a Cummings ME, Crothers LC, 2013. Interacting selection diversiﬁes warning depth gradient in male conspicuousness in threespine stickleback signals in a polytypic frog: an examination with the strawberry poison frog. Gasterosteus aculaeatus. Evolution 71:2022–2036. Evol Ecol 27:693–710. Brown CH, Gomez R, Waser PM, 1995. Old world monkey vocalizations: Daniel JC, Blumstein DT, 1998. A test of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis in adaptation to the local habitat?. Anim Behav 50:945–961. four species of marmots. Anim Behav 56:1517–1528. Brumm H, 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a Danley PD, Husemann M, Chetta J, 2012. Acoustic diversity in Lake territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434–440. Malawi’s rock-dwelling cichlids. Env Biol Fishes 93:23–30. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 481 Dartnall HJA, Lander MR, Munz FS, 1961. Periodic changes in the visual pig- Forrest TG, 1991. Power output and efﬁciency of sound production by crick- ment of ﬁsh. In: Christensen C, Buchmann B, editors. Progress in ets. Behav Ecol 2:327–338. Photobiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 203–213. Fotheringham JR, Martin PR, Ratcliffe L, 1997. Song transmission and audi- Date EM, Lemon RE, 1993. Sound transmission: a basis for dialects in bird- tory perception of distance in wood warblers (Parulinae). Anim Behav 53: song?. Behaviour 124:291–312. 1271–1285. Davis JM, Stamps JA, 2004. The effect of natal experience on habitat preferen- Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A, 2011. Vocal frequency change reﬂects differ- ces. Trends Ecol Evol 19:411–416. ent responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant ﬂycatchers. de la Torre S, Snowdon CT, 2002. Environmental correlates of vocal commu- Proc R Soc B 278:2025–2031. nication of wild pygmy marmosets Cebuella pygmaea. Anim Behav 63: Friesen CN, Ramsey ME, Cummings ME, 2017. Differential sensitivity to 847–856. estrogen-induced opsin expression in two poeciliid freshwater ﬁsh species. Derryberry EP, 2009. Ecology shapes birdsong evolution: variation in morph- Gen Comp Endocrinology 246:200–210. ology and habitat explains variation in white-crowned sparrow song. Am Fuller RC, Travis J, 2004. Genetics, lighting environment and heritable Nat 174:24–33. responses to lighting environment affect male colour morph expression in Dingle C, Halfwert W, Slabbekoorn H, 2008. Habitat-dependent song diver- Blueﬁn killiﬁsh, Lucania goodei. Evol 58:1086–1098. gence at subspecies level in the grey-breasted wood-wren. J Evol Biol 21: Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ, 2007. Daytime noise predicts nocturnal 1079–1089. singing in urban robins. Biol Lett 3:368–370. Doucet SM, Montgomerie R, 2003. Bower location and orientation in Satin Fuller RC, 2002. Lighting environment predicts the relative abundance bowerbirds: optimising the conspicuousness of male display?. Emu 103: of male colour morphs in blueﬁn killiﬁsh Lucania goodei populations. Proc 105–109. R Soc B 269:1457–1465. Doutrelant C, Lambrechts MM, 2001. Macrogeographic variation in song-a Fuller RC, Fleishman J, Leal M, Travis J, Loew E, 2003. Intraspeciﬁc variation test of competition and habitat effect in blue tits. Ethology 107:533–544. in retinal cone distribution in the blueﬁn killiﬁsh Lucania goodei. JComp Elias DO, Mason AC, Hebets E, 2010. A signal-substrate match in the Physiol A 190:147–154. substrate-borne component of a multimodal courtship display. Curr Zool Fuller RC, Carleton KL, Fadool JM, Spady TC, Travis J, 2004. Population 56:370–378. variation in opsin expression in the blueﬁn killiﬁsh Lucania goodei: Endler JA, 1980. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. a real-time PCR study. J Comp Physiol A 190:147–154. Evol 34:76–91. Fuller RC, Carleton KL, Fadool JM, Spady TC, Travis J, 2005. Genetic and en- Endler JA, 1983. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in Poeciliid vironmental variation in the visual properties of blueﬁn killiﬁsh Lucania ﬁshes. Evol Biol Fishes 9:173–190. goodei. J Evol Biol 18:516–523. Endler JA, 1987. Predation, light intensity and courtship behavior in Poecilia Fuller RC, Noa LA, 2010. Female preferences, lighting environment, and a reticulata. Anim Behav 35:1376–1385. test of the sensory bias hypothesis in blueﬁn killiﬁsh. Anim Behav 80:23–35. Endler JA, 1991. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to gup- Fuller RC, Noa LA, Strellner RS, 2010. Teasing apart the many effects of light- pies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vis Res 31: ing environment on opsin expression and foraging preference in blueﬁn killi- 587–608. ﬁsh. Am Nat 176:1–13. Endler JA, 1992a. Sensory drive: does sensory biology bias or constrain the Gamble S, Lindholm AK, Endler JA, Brooks R, 2003. Environmental variation direction of evolution?. Am Nat 139(Suppl):S1–S153. and the maintenance of polymorphism: the effect of ambient light spectrum Endler JA, 1992b. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. on mating behaviour and sexual selection in guppies. Ecol Lett 6:463–472. Am Nat 139:125–153. Gamble T, Berendzen PB, Shaffer HB, Starkey DE, Somons AM, 2008. Species Endler JA, 1993a. Some general comments on the evolution and design of ani- limits and phylogeography of North American cricketfrogs (Acris: hylidae). mal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc B 340:215–225. Mol Phylogenet Evol 48:112–125. Endler JA, 1993b. The color of light in forests and its implications. Ecol Garcia CM, Ramirez E, 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into hon- Monogr 63:1–27. est signals. Nature 434:501–505. Endler JA, 1995. Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in Gish SL, Morton ES, 1981. Structural adaptations to local habitat acoustics in guppies. Trends Ecol Evol 10:22–29. Carolina wren songs. Z Tierpsychol 56:74–84. Endler JA, The ´ ry M, 1996. Interacting effects of lek placement, display behav- Gomez D, The ´ ry M, 2004. Inﬂuence of ambient light on the evolution of col- ior, ambient light, and color patterns in three neotropical forest-dwelling our signals: comparative analysis of a Neotropical rainforest bird commu- birds. Am Nat 148:421–452. nity. Ecol Lett 7:279–284. Endler JA, Basolo AL, 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selec- Gomez D, The ´ ry M, 2007. Simultaneous crypsis and conspicuousness in color tion. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420. patterns: comparative analysis of a neotropical rainforest bird community. Endler JA, Day BD, 2006. Ornament colour selection, visual contrast and the Am Nat 169:S42–S61. shape of colour preference functions in great bowerbirds Chlamydera Grafe TU, Preininger D, Sztatecxny M, Kasah R, Dehling JM, Proksch S, Ho¨dl nuchalis. Anim Behav 72:1405–1416. W, 2012. Multimodal communication in a noisy environment: a case study Endler JA, Endler LC, Doerr NR, 2010. Great bowerbirds create theaters with of the Bornean rock frog Staurois parvus. PLoS One 7:e37965. forced perspective when seen by their audience. Curr Biol 20:1679–1084. Grant BR, Grant PR, 2010. Songs of Darwin’s ﬁnches diverge when a new spe- Ey E, Fischer J, 2009. The “acoustic adaptation hypothesis”: a review of the cies enters the community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20156–20163. evidence from birds, anurans and mammals. Bioacoustics 19:21–48. Gray SM, Dill LM, Tantu FY, Loew ER, Herder F et al., 2008. Ey E, Rahn C, Hammerschmidt K, Fischer J, 2009. Wild female olive baboons Environment-contingent sexual selection in a colour polymorphic ﬁsh. Proc adapt their grunt vocalizations to environmental conditions. Ethology 115: R Soc B 275:1785–1791. 493–503. Greenﬁeld MD, 2015. Signal interactions and interference in insect choruses: Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL et al., 2006. Ultrasonic commu- signing and listening in the social environment. J Comp Physiol A 201: nication in frogs. Nature 440:333–336. 143–154. Fernandez AA, Morris MR, 2007. Sexual selection and trichromatic color vi- Hancox D, Wilson RS, White CR, 2013. Visual habitat geometry predicts rela- sion in primates: statistical support for the preexisting-bias hypothesis. Am tive morph abundance in the colour-polymorphic ornate rainbowﬁsh. Proc Nat 170:10–20. R Soc B 280:20122377. Fleishman LJ, 1992. The inﬂuence of the sensory system and the environment Harden MV, Newton LA, Lloyd RC, Whitlock KE, 2006. Olfactory imprint- on motion patterns in the visual displays of anoline lizards and other verte- ing is correlated with changes in gene expression in the olfactory epithelia of brates. Am Nat 139:36–61. zebraﬁsh. J Neurobiol 66:1452–1466. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 482 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 Hart NS, 2001. The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Ret Eye Res Maan ME, Cummings ME, 2012. Poison frog colors are honest signals of tox- 20:675–703. icity, particularly for bird predators. Am Nat 179:E1–14. Hart NS, Lisney TJ, Collin SP, 2006. Cone photoreceptor oil droplet pigmen- Maan M, Seehausen O, Groothuis T, 2017. Differential survival between vis- tation is affected by ambient light intensity. J Exp Biol 209:4476–4787. ual environments supports a role of divergent sensory drive in cichlid ﬁsh Hart NS, Hunt DM, 2007. Avian visual pigments: characteristics, spectral tun- speciation. Am Nat 189:78–85. ing, and evolution. Am Nat 169:S7–S26. Madden JR, Tanner K, 2003. Preferences for coloured bower decorations can Heindl M, Winkler H, 2003. Vertical lek placement of forest-dwelling man- be explained in a nonsexual context. Anim Behav 65:1077–1083. akin species (Aves, Pipridae) is associated with vertical gradients of ambient Maia R, Rubenstein DR, Shawkey MD, 2016. Selection, constraint, and the light. Biol J Linn Soc 80:647–658. evolution of coloration in African starlings. Evolution 70:1064–1079. Heinsohn R, Legge S, Endler JA, 2005. Extreme reversed sexual dichromatism Malone JH, Ribado J, Moriarty Lemmon E, 2014. Sensory drive does not in bird without sex role reversal. Science 309:617–619. explain reproductive character displacement of male acoustic signals in the Henry CS, Wells MLM, 2004. Adaptation or random change? The evolution- upland chorus frog Pseudacris feriarum. Evolution 68:1306–1319. ary response of songs to substrate properties in lacewings (Neuroptera: Marchetti K, 1993. Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the chrysopidae: chrysoperla). Anim Behav 68:879–895. environment in species divergence. Nature 362:149–152. Hinz C, Namekawa Ri, Behrmann-Godel J, Oppelt C, Jaeschke A et al., 2013. Marshall J, 2000. Communication and camouﬂage with the same “bright” Olfactory imprinting is triggered by MHC peptide ligands. Sci Reports 3: colours in reef ﬁshes. Philos Trans R Soc B 355:1243–1248. 2800. Marshall J, Cronin TW, Kleinlogel S, 2007. Stomatopod eye structure and Hofmann CM, O’Quin KE, Marshall NJ, Cronin TW, Seehausen O et al., function: a review. Arthrop Struct Dev 36:420–448. 2009. The eyes have it: regulatory and structural changes both underlie cich- McFarland WN, Munz FW, 1975. Part III: the evolution of photopic visual lid visual pigment diversity. PLoS Biol 7:e1000266. pigments in ﬁshes. Vis Res 15:1071–1080. Hofmann CM, O’Quin KE, Smith AR, Carleton KL, 2010. Plasticity of opsin McNett GD, Cocroft RB, 2008. Host shifts favor vibrational signal divergence gene expression in cichlids from Lake Malawi. Mol Ecol 19:2064–2074. in Enchenopa binotata treehoppers. Behav Ecol 19:650–656. Jacobs DS, Catto S, Mutumi GL, Finger N, Webala PW, 2017. Testing the sen- Mendelson TC, Shaw KL, 2005. Sexual behaviour: rapid speciation in an sory drive hypothesis: geographic variation in echolocation frequencies of arthropod. Nature 433:375–376. Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophidae: rhinolophus clivosus). PLoS Miller PJO, Biassoni N, Samuels A, Tyack PL, 2000. Whale songs lengthen in ONE 12:e0187769. response to sonar. Nature 405:309. Jain M, Balakrishnan R, 2012. Does acoustic adaptation drive vertical stratiﬁ- Mitani JC, Stuht J, 1998. The evolution of nonhuman primate loud calls: cation? A test in a tropical cricket assemblage. Behav Evol 23:343–354. acoustic adaptation for long-distance transmission. Primates 39:171–182. Johnson AM, Stanis S, Fuller RC, 2013. Diurnal lighting patterns and habitat Mockford EJ, Marshall RC, 2009. Effects of urban noise on song and response alter opsin expression and colour preferences in a killiﬁsh. Proc Roy Soc B behaviour in great tits. Proc Biol Sci 276:2979–2985. 280:20130796. Morrongiello JR, Bond NR, Crook DA, Wong BBM, 2010. Nuptial coloration Kelley LA, Endler JA, 2012. Illusions promote mating success in great bower- varies with ambient light environment in a freshwater ﬁsh. J Evol Biol 23: birds. Science 335:335–338. 2718–2725. Kim TW, Christy JH, Choe JC, 2007. A preference for a sexual signal keeps Morton ES, 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat females safe. PLoS One 2(5):e422. 109:17–34. Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ, 2000. The transmission of advertisement Muntz WRA, Mouat GSV, 1984. Annual variations in the visual pigments of calls in Central American frogs. Behav Ecol 11:71–83. brown trout inhabiting lochs providing different light environments. Vis Res Kirschel ANG, Blumstein DT, Cohen RE, Buermann W, Smith TB et al., 2009. 11:1575–1580. Birdsong tuned to the environment: green hylia song varies with elevation, Munz FW, Beatty DD, 1965. A critical analysis of the visual pigments of sal- tree cover and noise. Behav Ecol 20:1089–1095. mon and trout. Vis Res 5:1–17. Lardner B, Bin Lakim M, 2002. Animal communication: tree-hole frogs ex- Nemeth E, Winkler H, Dabelsteen T, 2001. Differential degradation of ant- ploit resonance effects. Nature 420:475. bird songs in a neotropical rainforest: adaptation to perch height?. Leal M, Fleishman LJ, 2002. Evidence for habitat partitioning based on adap- J Acoustic Soc Am 110:3263–3274. tation to environmental light in a pair of sympatric lizard species. Proc Roy Noh S, Henry CS, 2010. Sexually monomorphic mating preferences contribute Soc B-Biol Sci 269:351–359. to premating isolation based on song in European green lacewings. Leal M, Fleishman LJ, 2004. Differences in visual signal design and detect- Evolution 64:261–270. ability between allopatric populations of Anolis lizards. Am Nat 163: Odendaal FJ, Bull CM, Telford SR, 1986. Inﬂuence of the acoustic environ- 26–39. ment on the distribution of the frog Ranidella riparia. Anim Behav 34: LeBas NR, Marshall NJ, 2000. The role of colour in signalling and male choice 1836–1843. in the agamid lizard Ctenophorus ornatus. Proc R Soc B 267:445–452. Ord TJ, Peters RA, Clucas B, Stamps JA, 2007. Lizards speed up visual dis- Levine JS, MacNichol EF, 1979. Visual pigments in teleost ﬁshes: effects of habi- plays in noisy motion habitats. Proc R Soc B 274:1057–1062. tat, microhabitat, and behavior on visual system evolution. Sens Proc 3:95–131. Parry JWL, Carleton KL, Spady T, Carboo A, Hunt DM, Bowmaker JK, 2005. Liebman PA, Granda AM, 1971. Microspectrophotometric measurements of Mix and match color vision: tuning spectral sensitivity by differential opsin visual pigments in two species of turtle, Pseudemys scripta and Chelonia gene expression in Lake Malawi cichlids. Curr Biol 15:1734–1739. mydas. Vis Res 11:105–114. Patten MA, Rotenverry JT, Zuk M, 2004. Habitat selection, acoustic adapta- Loew ER, Dartnall HJA, 1976. Vitamin A1/A2-based visual pigment mixtures tion, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58:2144–2155. in cones of the rudd. Vis Res 16:891–896. Penna M, Solis R, 1998. Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the Loew ER, Fleishman LJ, Foster RG, Provencio I, 2002. Visual pigments and South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371–381. oil droplets in diurnal lizards: a comparative study of Caribbean anoles. Peters RA, Evans CS, 2003. Design of the Jacky dragon visual display: signal J Exp Biol 205:927–938. and noise characteristics in a complex moving environment. J Comp Physiol Long KD, Rosenqvist G, 1998. Changes in male guppy courting distance in re- A 189:447–459. sponse to a ﬂuctuating light environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:77–83. Peters RA, Hemmi JM, Zeli J, 2007. Signaling against the wind: modifying Luther D, 2009. The inﬂuence of the acoustic community on songs of birds in motion-signal structure in response to increased noise. Curr Biol 17: a Neotropical rain forest. Behav Ecol 20:864–871. 1231–1234. Lythgoe JN, 1979. The Ecology of Vision. London: Oxford University Press. Podos J, 2010. Acoustic discrimination of sympatric morphs in Darwin’s Maan ME, Hofker KD, van Alphen JJ, Seehausen O, 2006. Sensory drive in ﬁnches: a behavioural mechanism for assortative mating?. Philos Trans R cichlid speciation. Am Nat 167:947–954. Soc B 365:1031–1039. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 Cummings and Endler. Sensory drive evidence and its watery bias 483 Potvin DA, Parris KM, Mulder RA, 2011. Geographically pervasive effects of Sigmund WR, 1983. Female preference for Anolis carolinensis males as urban noise on frequency and syllable rate of songs and calls in silvereyes a function of dewlap color and background coloration. JHerp 17: Zosterops lateralis. Proc R Soc B 278:2464–2469. 137–143. Price TD, 2017. Sensory drive, color, and color vision. Am Nat 190:157–170. Slabberkoorn H, Peet M, 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Proctor HC, 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males Nature 424:267. capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598. Slabbekoorn H, der Boer-Vissor A, 2006. Cities change the songs of birds. Proctor HC, 1992. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating be- Curr Biol 16:2326–2331. haviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: parasitengona). Anim Slabbekoorn H, Yeh P, Hunt K, 2007. Sound transmission and song Behav 44:745–752. divergence: a comparison of urban and forest acoustics. Condo 109: Puechmaille SJ, Gouilh MA, Piyapan P, Yokubol M, Mie KM et al., 2011. The 67–78. evolution of sensory divergence in the context of limited gene ﬂow in the Smith AR, van Staaden MJ, 2009. The association of visual and acoustic court- bumblebee bat. Nat Commun 2:573. ship behaviors in African cichlid ﬁshes. Mar Fresh Behav Physio 42: Reimchen T, 1989. Loss of nuptial color in threespine sticklebacks 211–216. Gasterosteus aculeatus. Evolution 43:450–460. Smith AR, van Staaden MJ, Carleton KL, 2012. An evaluation of the role of Richards DG, Wiley RH, 1980. Reverberations and amplitude ﬂuctuations in sensory drive in the evolution of Lake Malawi Cichlid Fishes. Intl J Evol the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communica- Biol 2012:1–12. tion. Am Nat 115:381–399. Smith C, Barber I, Wootton RJ, Chittka L, 2004. A receiver bias in the origin Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT, 2002. A possible non-sexual ori- of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc R Soc B 271:949–955. gin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit?. Proc R Soc Biol Snell-Rood EC, Badyaev AV, 2008. Ecological gradient of sexual selection: B 269:475–481. elevation and song elaboration in ﬁnches. Oecologia 157:545–551. Rosenthal GG, Evans CS, 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus Sorjonen J, 1986. Song structure and singing strategies in the genus Luscinia in helleri reﬂects a bias for large apparent size. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 95: different habitats and geographic areas. Behaviour 98:274–285. 4431–4436. Steinberg DS, Leal M, 2016. Visual motion detection and habitat preference in Rutkowski RL, Macadonia JM, Merry JW, Morehouse NI, Yturralde K et al., Anolis lizards. J Comp Physio A 202:783–790. 2007. Iridescent ultraviolet signal in the orange Sulphur butterﬂy Colias eury- Stuart-Fox D, Moussalli A, Whiting MJ, 2007. Natural selection on social sig- theme: spatial, temporal and spectral properties. Biol J Linn Soc 90:349–364. nals: signal efﬁcacy and the evolution of chameleon display coloration. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA, 1985. The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient Am Nat 170:916–930. noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat 126:87–100. Stuart-Fox D, Moussalli A, 2008. Selection for social signalling drives the evo- Ryan MJ, Sullivan BK, 1989. Transmission effects of temporal structure in the lution of chameleon colour change. PLoS Biol 6:e25. advertisement calls of two toads, Bufo woodhousei and Bufo valliceps. Sueur J, Aubin T, 2003. Is microhabitat segregation between two cicada spe- Ethology 80:182–189. cies (Tibicina haematodex and Cicada orni) due to calling song propagation Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex constraints?. Naturewiss 90:322–326. calls in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sen- Sugiura H, Tanaka T, Masataka N, 2006. Sound transmission in the habitats sory exploitation). Evolution 44:305–314. of Japanese macaques and its possible effect on population differences in Ryan MJ, Cocroft RB, Wilcynski W, 1990. The role of environmental selec- coo calls. Behaviour 143:993–1012. tion in the intraspeciﬁc divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB, 2010. The importance of female choice, frog Acris crepitans. Evolution 44:1869–1872. male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on Ryan MJ, Cummings ME, 2013. Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annu Rev male mating signals. Evolution 64:3158–3171. Ecol Evol Syst 44:437–459. Sun JWC, Narins PM, 2005. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect am- Sandkam BA, Young CM, Breden FMW, Bourne GR, Breden F, 2015. Color phibian call rate. Biol Conserv 121:419–427. vision varies more among populations than among species of live-bearing The ´ ry M, Pincebourde S, Feer F, 2008. Dusk light environment optimizes vis- ﬁsh from South America. BMC Evol Biol 15:225. ual perception of conspeciﬁcs in a crepuscular horned beetle. Behav Ecol 19: Sandkam BA, Deere-Machemer KA, Johnson AM, Grether GF, Rodd FH 627–634. et al., 2016. Exploring visual plasticity: dietary carotenoids can change color Tobias JA, Aben J, Brumﬁeld RT, Derryberry EP, Halfwerk W et al., 2010. vision in guppies Poecilia reticulata. J Comp Phys A 202:527–534. Song divergence by sensory drive in Amazonian birds. Evolution 64: Saunders J, Slotow R, 2004. The evolution of song structure in southern 2820–2839. African birds: an assessment of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis. Ostrich Tuset VM, Otero-Ferrer JL, Gomez-Zurita J, Venerus LA, Stransky C et al., 75:147–155. 2016. Otolith shape lends support to the sensory drive hypothesis in rock- Scheffer SJ, Uetz GW, Stratton GE, 1996. Sexual selection, male morphology, ﬁshes. J Evol Biol 29:2083–2097. and the efﬁcacy of courtship signalling in two wolf spiders (Araneae: lycosi- Uy JAC, Endler JA, 2004. Modiﬁcation of the visual background increases the dae). Behav Ecol Soc 38:17–23. conspicuousness of golden-collared manakin displays. Behav Ecol 15: Schmidt AKD, Riede K, Romer H, 2011. High background noise shapes select- 1003–1010. ive auditory ﬁlters in a tropical cricket. J Exp Biol 214:1754–1762. UY JAC, Stein AC, 2007. Variable visual habitats may inﬂuence the spread Scholz AT, Horrall RM, Cooper JC, Hasler AD, 1976. Imprinting to chemical of colourful plumage across an avian hybrid zone. J Evol Biol 20: cues: the basis for home stream selection in salmon. Science 192: 1847–1858. 1247–1249. Veen T, Brock C, Rennison D, Bolnick D, 2017. Plasticity contributes to a Seehausen O, Van Alphen JJM, Witte F, 1997. Cichlid ﬁsh diversity threatened ﬁne–scale depth gradient in sticklebacks’ visual system. Mol Ecol 2017: by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277:1808–1811. 1–12. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes IS, Carleton KL, Mrosso HD et al., 2008. Veilleux CC, Cummings ME, 2012. Nocturnal light environments and species Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid ﬁsh. Nature 455:620–626. ecology: implications for nocturnal color vision in forests. J Exp Biol 215: Shand J, Davies WL, Thomas N, Balmer L, Cowing JA et al., 2008. The inﬂu- 4085–4096. ence of ontogeny and light environment on the expression of visual pigment Veilleux CC, Jacobs RI, Cummings ME, Louis EE, Bolnick DA, 2013. Opsin opsins in the retina of the black bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri. J Exp Biol genes and visual ecology in a nocturnal folivorous lemur. Int J Primatol 35: 211:1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764–013–9708–6. Shy E, Morton ES, 1986. Adaptation of amplitude structure of songs to propa- Waser P, Waser MS, 1977. Experimental studies of primate vocalization: spe- gation in ﬁeld habitat in song sparrows. Ethology 72:177–184. cializations for long-distance propagation. Ethology 43:239–263. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018 484 Current Zoology, 2018, Vol. 64, No. 4 Wiley RH, 1991. Associations of song properties with habitats for territorial Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, 2005. How cricket frog females oscine birds of Eastern North America. Am Nat 138:973–993. deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA, 2011. Complex courtship displays facilitate male re- Behav Ecol 16:571–579. productive success and plasticity in signalling across variable environments. Wollerman L, Wiley H, 2002. Background noise from a natural chorus alters fe- Curr Zool 57:175–186. male discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 63:15–22. Wilkins MR, Seddon N, Safran RJ, 2013. Evolutionary divergence in Ziegler L, Arim M, Narins PM, 2011. Linking amphibian call structure to the acoustic signals: causes and consequences. Trends Ecol Evol 28: environment: the interplay between phenotypic ﬂexibility and individual 156–166. attributes. Behav Ecol 22:520–526. Windmill JFC, Jackson JC, Tuck EJ, Robert D, 2006. Keeping up with bats: Zimmerman BL, 1983. A comparison of structural features of calls of open and dynamic auditory tuning in a moth. Curr Biol 16:2418–2423. forest habitat frog species in the central Amazon. Herpetologica 39:235–245. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/64/4/471/5034003 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 22 August 2018
Current Zoology – Oxford University Press
Published: Aug 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud