English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The most commonly assumed cost for exaggerated male ornamentation is increased predation pressure owing to decreased locomotor performance or increased conspicuousness to predators. Despite its intuitive basis, the locomotor costs of male ornamentation are not well established. We tested the hypothesis that multiple male signals that are used independently during female choice and male competition could lead to varied locomotor costs. Multiple signals with varied costs could provide a more detailed indicator of overall male quality, as only the highest-quality individuals could support all costs. To test this idea, we investigated the burst locomotor consequences of multiple ornaments for males of the pacific blue-eye (Pseudomugil signifer). We evaluated five competing models relating body size, ornament size and performance traits to field measures of dominance and attractiveness. Non-propulsive male fin ornaments used during male competition were different from those used in female choice. First dorsal fin length was the most important predictor of male attractiveness, while dominance was only associated with anal fin length. Furthermore, first dorsal fin length was positively correlated with swim speed, while anal fin length was negatively associated with speed. Our study shows that multiple male signals that are used independently during male competition and female choice also differ in their associated costs. This provides a mechanism for understanding why locomotor costs for exaggerated male ornamentation are not often empirically demonstrated.

Females prefer athletes, males fear the disadvantaged: different signals used in female choice and male competition have varied consequences