Abstract

Eavesdropping by electroreceptive predators poses a conflict for weakly electric fish, which depend on their Electric Organ Discharge (EOD) signals both for navigation and communication in the dark. The EODs that allow weakly electric fish to electrolocate and communicate in the dark may attract electroreceptive predators such as catfishes and Electric Eels. These predators share with their prey the synapomorphy of passive electric sense supported by ampullary electroreceptors that are highly sensitive to low-frequency electric fields. Any low-frequency spectral components of the EOD make weakly electric fish conspicuous and vulnerable to attack from electroreceptive predators. Accordingly, most weakly electric fish shift spectral energy upwards or cloak low-frequency energy with compensatory masking signals. Subadults and females in particular emit virtually no low-frequency energy in their EODs, whereas courting males include a significant low-frequency component, which likely attracts females, but makes the signals conspicuous to predators. Males of species that coexist with the most predators tend to produce the least low-frequency signal energy, expressing sexual dimorphism in their signals in less risky ways. In these respects, electric signals follow the classic responses to opposing forces of natural and sexual selection, as exemplified in the visual signals of guppies and the acoustic signals of Tungara frogs. Unique to electric fish is that the electric signal modifications that help elude detection by electroreceptive predators are additions to the basal signal rather than losses of attractive components. These enhancements that enable crypsis are energetically costly, but have also provided the evolutionary substrates for subsequent sexual selection and species identity characters.

Highlights

  • Reproductive signals may be subject to balancing selection wherein sexual selection favors extravagant signals, while natural selection by predators provides a moderating counterforce (Maan and Seehausen, 2011)

  • How Predation Shapes Electric Signals signaler shifts its signal frequency out of the sensory range of the predator, and the predator falls under selection to shift its sensory range to continue detecting its prey (Verrell, 1991; Zuk and Kolluru, 1998)

  • The limited sensory physiology data on electric signals suggests vulnerability of some electric waveforms to predation, but the critical sensory information derives from study of temperate catfish species

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Reproductive signals may be subject to balancing selection wherein sexual selection favors extravagant signals, while natural selection by predators provides a moderating counterforce (Maan and Seehausen, 2011). The electric organ discharge (EOD) waveforms of many extant freshwater species have complex, polyphasic voltage waveforms (Hopkins and Heiligenberg, 1978; Hopkins, 1980) These waveforms appear to bear the signatures of historic selection for predator avoidance, mate attraction, and species isolation A cogent argument has been made that multiple signal phases reduced or eliminated the low-frequency power in the signals in response to selection by electroreceptive predators, providing the key substrates for subsequent evolution of sexual signaling and species isolation mechanisms (Stoddard, 1999, 2002a)

ELECTRORECEPTIVE PREDATORS
EOD PROPERTIES AND DETECTABILITY BY PREDATORS
PREDATION DENSITY AND EOD PROPERTIES IN NATURAL POPULATIONS
PARALLELS TO OTHER SYSTEMS
Findings
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call