Study explains evolution phenomenon that puzzled Darwin

November 30, 2016
A new mathematical model developed by Northwestern University researchers explains why two distinct subspecies evolve in ornamented animals: one with flashy, "costly" ornaments for attracting mates and one with subdued, "low-cost" ornaments. Here, two male taurus scarab beetles, a type of dung beetle, illustrate the subdued subgroup (left) and the showy subgroup (right). Credit: Douglas Emlen, University of Montana

Why do some animals have extravagant, showy ornaments—think elk and deer antlers, peacock feathers and horns on dung beetles—that can be a liability to survival? Charles Darwin couldn't figure it out, but now a Northwestern University research team has a possible explanation for this puzzling phenomenon of evolution.

The researchers developed a mathematical model that made a surprising prediction: In animals with ornamentation, males will evolve out of the tension between natural selection and sexual selection into two distinct subspecies, one with flashy, "costly" for attracting mates and one with subdued, "low-cost" ornaments.

"Ornamentation does persist in nature, and our quantitative model reveals that a species can split into two subspecies as a result of the ornamentation battle that occurs over time," said Daniel M. Abrams, an associate professor of engineering sciences and applied mathematics in the McCormick School of Engineering.

Evidence from nature agrees. The researchers studied available data on animal ornaments, such as deer antlers, , brightness of certain fish and tail length of some birds, from 15 species. They found the same distribution pattern of ornament sizes across many of the species: The animals often split into the two subgroups predicted by the model, one showy and one subdued, with very few in the middle.

It was deer antlers that first made Abrams, an applied mathematician, wonder why some animals spend precious energy to grow and carry around something that could compromise life. It's not unusual for male deer and their antlers to get stuck in trees or fences—or to each other in a fight—and die.

"Animals with extravagant ornaments are showing just how fit and strong they are—that they can overcome the costs of these ornaments—and this attracts the opposite sex," said Abrams, who led the study.

In fact, the subdued subgroup's existence is a factor in the ability of individuals in the flashy subgroup to pass on their genes. The contrast gives the more ostentatious individuals physical distinction and cachet, helping to woo mates and propagate themselves.

The study, which aids our understanding of how life has evolved on Earth, will be published Nov. 29 by the biological sciences journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The study's other authors are Sara M. Clifton, a graduate student in Abrams' group, and Rosemary I. Braun, a computational biologist and assistant professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The video will load shortly.
Credit: Northwestern University

"This is a study of evolution using mathematical biology—how sexual selection and natural selection play off each other and produce some of the strange things we see in the animal world," said Clifton, the paper's first author. "The horned dung beetle from our study is a good example of how large horns really handicap the animal, yet they exist."

Abrams, Braun and Clifton started with Zahavi's handicap principle, from 1975, which offers an elegant explanation for the evolution of the flashy ornaments: Ornaments signal individual quality and the ability to overcome high costs. This ensures "honest advertising" to the opposite sex, making mate selection more efficient.

The researchers incorporated both the assumptions of the handicap principle and what evolving ornaments would look like over a long period of time into a mathematical model. The results showed the assumptions are sufficient to explain the previously puzzling observation of the two distinct subgroups of flashy, high-cost ornaments and subdued, low-cost ornaments in a variety of species spanning the animal kingdom.

After developing their model, the researchers studied 23 data sets from 15 different animal species from the published scientific literature and found that all were consistent with their model. There were no exceptions.

"The model is completely independent of the underlying genetic mechanism that causes these ornaments to grow, which I find fascinating," Braun said. "It tells us that if you have these two competing forces, and , two morphs, or subgroups, will emerge. The model is so general it can be applied to many different species and still have the same explanatory power."

Where do humans fit in?

"I don't want to push it too far, but the natural analogy is that individuals also can try to appear more appealing by spending resources on things that cost a lot of money—expensive homes, cars, clothes or jewelry, for example," Abrams said.

"The only way you can afford to spend so much money on these things is if you already have a lot of money. It's demonstrating wealth by throwing away a lot of wealth on these objects, which is similar to deer having showy but costly antlers," he said.

The title of the Royal Society Proceedings B paper is "Handicap Principle Implies Emergence of Dimorphic Ornaments."

Explore further: Competitive males are a blessing and a curse, study reveals

More information: Handicap principle implies emergence of dimorphic ornaments, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, rspb.royalsocietypublishing.or … .1098/rspb.2016.1970

Related Stories

Competitive males are a blessing and a curse, study reveals

November 14, 2016

Showy ornaments used by the male of the species in competition for mates, such as the long tail of a peacock or shaggy mane of a lion, could indicate a species' risk of decline in a changing climate, according to a new study ...

Outrageous heads led to outrageously large dinosaurs

September 27, 2016

Tyrannosaurus rex and other large meat-eating theropods were the biggest baddies on the prehistoric block, and ornaments on their heads could help us figure out why. New research from North Carolina State University shows ...

More flight than fancy?

April 5, 2007

Scientists from the universities of Exeter and Cambridge have turned a textbook example of sexual selection on its head and shown that females may be more astute at choosing a mate than previously thought.

Recommended for you

These shrews have heads that shrink with the season

October 23, 2017

If any part of the body would seem ill equipped to shrink, it would probably be the head and skull. And, yet, researchers reporting in Current Biology on October 23 have found that the skulls of red-toothed shrews do shrink ...

Single-molecule dissection of developmental gene control

October 23, 2017

Scientists at EPFL and Max Plank have made significant discoveries on how developmental genes are controlled by the methyltransferase enzyme PRC2. The study is published in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology.

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Macksb
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
Daniel Abrams is a smart guy. Some years ago he did interesting work in coupled oscillator theory, some of it in conjunction with Steve Strogatz at Cornell, who has been an evangelist for Art Winfree's theory of coupled oscillators. See "Chimera States" by these two men.

Though not mentioned in this Physorg article, Winfree's coupled oscillator theory "predicts" dimorphism in a very general way. Winfree said that in a two oscillator system there are two possible coupling results: A and the opposite of A. (Actually, synchronous and exactly antisynchronous, in Winfree's work.)

Here, there are two outcomes: modestly ornamental (A) or highly ornamental (the opposite of A). Nothing in between. A and the opposite of A. No middle ground!

Where natural selection is more critical, the result is A. Where sexual selection (for certain male properties) is more critical, the result is the opposite of A. Variations in habitat and environment will "prefer" one or the other.
RandallKing
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
Regarding humans, it may be wise to filter the language -- preferring terms like "morph" and "subgroup" over "subspecies." Perhaps many will agree that discussions concerning the splitting of modern (and future) humanity into subspecies can be dangerous and should be entered with caution.
PeterKinnon
not rated yet Dec 01, 2016
Almost all seem to be locked in to the traditional paradigm of male ornamentation advertising exceptional fitness.

Typically this embedded mindset precludes the search for alternative explanations.

One such is the perhaps more plausible model involving male disposability.

That the male, essentially a mere sperm-carrier that enhances genetic diversity, is more disposable than the female is highlighted my such examples as those species of spider in which the female devours the male after mating. Why the reverse situation never occurs should be obvious!

Because of this male disposability, a measure of protection for the more important female can be afforded by the male, with brighter colours, for instance, or structures providing impediments, being more easily detected or captured by predators. The overall result being a selective advantage for such decorations.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.