title: The dynamics of honesty: modelling the growth of costly, sexually-selected ornaments.
abstract: The handicap principle suggests that individuals of superior quality can more easily bear the cost of developing extravagant ornaments. Consequently, ornament size should provide reliable information about quality or condition. Previous models have largely ignored the process of ornament growth, focusing only on final ornament size. We model ornament growth schedules for individuals of different qualities, where higher quality individuals experience lower costs of carrying energy reserves of a given size, but where all individuals pay a net cost of carrying ornaments of a given size. If the costs of ornament production ensure that final ornament size reliably signals quality, the information conveyed by the signal can change dramatically during growth. Higher quality individuals should delay growth until closer to breeding. Taking a snapshot of partially developed ornaments prior to breeding would show them to be larger in poorer quality individuals. The claim that costly ornaments honestly signal quality thus needs to be understood in a dynamic context, and may only hold during some phases of growth.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter in Cornwall, Penryn, United Kingdom. sean.rands@bristol.ac.uk
authors.forename: Sean A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Rands
authors.forename: Matthew R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Evans
authors.forename: Rufus A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Johnstone
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D012726:Sexual Behavior, Animal
references.citation: Am Nat. 2009 Oct;174(4):515-25
references.pmid: 19737111
references.citation: Am Nat. 2005 Mar;165(3):389-402
references.pmid: 15729668
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Oct;7(10):e1002252
references.pmid: 22028645
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2010 Jul;84(3):668-70
references.pmid: 20303397
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Dec;24(12):670-5
references.pmid: 19683827
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2005 May 31;69(2):97-124
references.pmid: 15845293
references.citation: Acta Biotheor. 1990 Mar;38(1):37-61
references.pmid: 2109917
references.citation: Nature. 2003 May 22;423(6938):432-4
references.pmid: 12761547
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2009 Jan;78(1):161-71
references.pmid: 19120602
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Jan;59(1):138-51
references.pmid: 15792234
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205-14
references.pmid: 1195756
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1995 Feb;70(1):1-65
references.pmid: 7718697
references.citation: Bone. 2009 Apr;44(4):691-8
references.pmid: 19124089
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Feb 18;8:51
references.pmid: 18282297
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8733-8
references.pmid: 16731616
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2009 Dec;22(12):2387-94
references.pmid: 19874439
references.citation: Am Nat. 2007 Apr;169(4):481-93
references.pmid: 17273980
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1993 Apr 29;340(1291):73-92
references.pmid: 8099746
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Jan 27;363(1490):301-19
references.pmid: 17673417
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22104
references.pmid: 21765938