Openly accessible

25 years of sensory drive: the evidence and its watery bias

Cummings, Molly E. and Endler, John A. 2018, 25 years of sensory drive: the evidence and its watery bias, Current zoology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 471-484, doi: 10.1093/cz/zoy043.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
endler-25yearsofsensory-2018.pdf Published version application/pdf 610.24KB 2

Title 25 years of sensory drive: the evidence and its watery bias
Author(s) Cummings, Molly E.
Endler, John A.ORCID iD for Endler, John A. orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-7627
Journal name Current zoology
Volume number 64
Issue number 4
Start page 471
End page 484
Total pages 14
Publisher Oxford Academic
Place of publication Oxford, Eng.
Publication date 2018-08
ISSN 0001-7302
Keyword(s) animal communication
sensory drive
sensory ecology
sexual selection
Handling editor: Rebecca C. Fuller
Summary 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 utility 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 (detectable 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 visual 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 showing 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 terrestrial 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.
Language eng
DOI 10.1093/cz/zoy043
Field of Research 0608 Zoology
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2018, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution non-commercial licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30112997

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Life and Environmental Sciences
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 7 Abstract Views, 3 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 14:15:03 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.