Taxonomic and sensory biases in the mate-choice literature: there are far too few studies of chemical and multimodal communication

Abstract

The sexual selection literature has grown rapidly in recent years. In an effort to elucidate biases in the focus of current mate-choice research here, I review 297 studies among 230 species. Among taxa, studies of birds were most common (40% of all studies), with insects, fishes, and anurans less well represented (20%, 18%, 14%, respectively). All other taxa were poorly represented in the literature (<3%). Across sensory modalities, studies of visual and acoustic signals were most common (46%, 30%, respectively), with relatively few studies investigating chemical, tactile, and electrical signals in mate choice (3%, 3%, <1%, respectively). Most mate-choice studies of birds and fishes investigated visual signals, while the majority of insect and anuran studies investigated acoustic signals. While these associations may reflect biological realities-birds and anurans tend not to emphasize chemical cues in mate choice; electric communication may indeed be quite uncommon-they may also be grossly misleading: chemical cues are likely critical for mate choice in millions of insect species. Moreover, I suggest that the particularly high vulnerability of chemical communication networks to anthropogenic fouling should provide immediate motivation for many more studies of chemical signals in mate choice. Finally, I find that despite widespread acceptance that male displays are often comprised of multiple elements produced across sensory modalities, studies simultaneously investigating the use of multiple cues in mate choice are rare. While not exhaustive, this review identifies biases in the focus of mate-choice studies, and should serve to identify fruitful directions for future mate-choice research.

Evidence for partial overlap of male olfactory cues in lampreys

“…Combined with evidence that commonly released hormones function as pheromones in many fishes (Stacey, 2015), our results raise questions regarding species-specificity as a tenet of pheromone communication in vertebrates (Wyatt, 2014). Lastly, we suggest that P. marinus is a useful system for the study of how sexual signals function and evolve, which is less often studied from the perspective of chemical communication compared with other sensory modalities (Andersson, 1994;Coleman, 2009;Steiger et al, 2011), particularly in vertebrates (Johansson and Jones, 2007;Symonds and Elgar, 2008). marinus.…”

Flowers help bees cope with uncertainty: signal detection and the function of floral complexity

“…For example, males courting females, prey deterring predators and humans speaking with each other generally use some combination of acoustic, visual, tactile and chemical stimuli, as reviewed by Hebets and Papaj (Hebets and Papaj, 2005). Despite the ubiquity of these multi-component or multimodal signals across taxonomic groups and behavioral contexts, most hypotheses regarding their function remain untested (Coleman, 2009). Given the potential costs of producing a more elaborate display (Partan and Marler, 2005), why signal across multiple sensory modalities rather than just one?…”

Two distinct genomic regions, harbouring the period and fruitless genes, affect male courtship song in Drosophila montana

“…Reproductive isolation often relies on divergence of courtship signals and preferences, which may occur because of sexual selection (Ritchie, 2007). Among courtship signals, acoustic communication is one of the most common and well-studied channels (Coleman, 2009) and it has been found to have a crucial role in the reproductive behaviours of many birds, mammals, frogs and insects.…”