Core Concepts in Animal Behavior – Winter 2008                                                               02/05/2007

Michael Beecher

Professor of Psychology & Biology

http://faculty.washington.edu/beecher/

Guthrie 327, 543-6545

beecher@u.washington.edu

William Searcy

Professor of Biology, University of Miami

http://www.bio.miami.edu/searcylab/

Guthrie 339, 543-5625

wsearcy@bio.miami.edu

PSYCH 502, 3 credits (graded)               Tues Thurs 11:00-12:20 – Guthrie 315                http://courses.washington.edu/ccab/

We will discuss the major concepts and research approaches in the contemporary study of animal behavior. We will focus on topics that lie at the interface of animal behavior, evolutionary biology, neurobiology and psychology. The course will be taught at two levels: first an introduction to each topic, followed by in-depth discussion and analysis centering on primary-source readings.

 

Course requirements and student responsibilities: The focus of the course is on problem areas that are central to the study of animal behavior. There are more core concepts than there are days in this course, however, and so we will slant the course towards topics that are of particular interest to the participants. Generally Tuesdays will be ‘lecture’ days (peppered with discussion) in which MB and WS give their take on the historical and theoretical basis for the question; we will read one or two seminal papers on the topic (sometimes golden oldies, sometimes hot new papers). Generally Thursdays will stick with the problem area but focus more narrowly on a particular research and/or theoretical approach, again with a particular one or two papers we'll read; Thursdays will be led by one or two students in the class. Each paper will be discussed in seminar format, with the discussion leader/s responsible for (1) summarizing and (2) preparing questions for each original paper (questions to be handed out ahead of time as reading guides). The only requirement of the course will be leading two discussions and full participation in others. Students are welcome to develop a review paper or grant proposal centering on one of the research areas discussed during the course, but I don’t think it is feasible to submit such a paper or proposal within the 11-week quarter; this we have made this an optional task, and would be happy to review such a manuscript submitted later (by the end of spring quarter). Some potential topics and readings are listed below. We solicit additional suggestions from the participants, the only requirement being that the topic can be reasonably viewed as a "core concept" in this very broad field. We'll winnow the list down to our top 10 or so (roughly one for each week of the quarter). Thus the final selection of topics will take on the flavor of the particular interests of the folks who enroll in the class.


 

Altruism. Evolution of sociality based on kin selection or reciprocity or neither.  (1) Hamilton, W. D., 1964. The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16, 17-32. Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390-1396.  (2) Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press (chapt 1); Williams, G. C. (editor) 1971. Group Selection (GCW’s intro).  (3) Trivers, R. L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism, Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35-57.  (4) Alexander, R. D. 1974. The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review Ecology & Systematics  5: 325-383.  (5) Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard Univ. Press.  (6) Brown, J. 1970. Cooperative breeding and altruistic behaviour in the Mexican jay. Animal Behaviour 18: 366-378; 1974. Alternate routes to sociality in jays - with a theory for the evolution of altruism and communal breeding. American Zoologist 14: 63-80.  (7) Sherman, P. W. 1977. Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science 197: 1246-1253;  1985. Alarm calls of Belding's ground squirrels to aerial predators: nepotism or self-preservation? Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology  17: 313-323.   (8) Wilkinson, G. S. 1984. Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature, 308: 181-184;  1990. Food sharing in vampire bats. Scientific American 262, 2: 64-70.  (9) Emlen, S. T., Wrege, P. H. & Demong, N. J. 1995. Making decisions in the family: An evolutionary perspective. American Scientist 83: 148-157.  (10) Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. 1999. Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science 284: 1640-1644.  (8) Queller, D. C. & Strassman, J. E. 1998. Kin selection in social insects. Bioscience 48: 165-175. Color figs for Q & S. (9) Krakauer, A. H. 2005. Kin selection and cooperative courtship in wild turkeys. Nature 434: 69-73.  (10) Duffy, J. E. 1996. Eusociality in coral-reef shrimp. Nature 381: 512-514.  (11) Strassman, J. et al. 2000. Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum. Nature 408: 965-967.  Mehdiabadi, N. J. et al. 2006. Kin preference in a social microbe. Nature 442: 881-882.  Gilbert, O. M. et al. 2007. High relatedness maintains multicellular cooperation in a social amoeba by controlling cheater mutants. PNAS 104: 8913-8917.  (12) Wilson, D. S. & Wilson, E. O. 2007. Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology 82: 327-348.  (13) Seeley, T. D. 1997. Honey bee colonies are group-level adaptive units. American Naturalist 150: S22-S41.  (14) Nowak, M. A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560-1563.  (14) Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. 1998. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393: 573-577.  Bshary, R. 2002. Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image-score client reef fish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond B 269: 2087-2093. Bshary, R. & Grutter, A. S. 2006. Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 441: 975-978.

 

Sexual selection 1. Classics, theory & review.  (1) R.A. Fisher. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Clarendon Press (1930).  (2) Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection.  In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the descent of man. Heinemann, London. Extract.  (3) Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-213.  (4) Emlen, S. T. & Oring, L. W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-314. (5) R. Lande, R.  1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. PNAS  78: 3721–3725.  (6) Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution  36: 1-12.  (7) Searcy, W.A. and M. Andersson. 1986. Sexual selection and song. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.  17: 507-533. (8) M. Andersson. 1994. Sexual Selection, Princeton Univ. Press.  (9) Ryan, M. J. 1997. Sexual selection and mate choice. pp. 179-202. In: J.R. Krebs, N.B. Davies, editors, Behavioural Ecology, An Evolutionary Approach, 4th edition. Blackwell, Oxford. (10) Ryan, M. J. 1998. Receiver biases, sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281: 1999-2003.  (11) Hasselquist, D. & Sherman, P. W. 2001.  Social mating systems and extrapair fertilizations in passerine birds. Behavioral Ecology 12: 457-466.  (12) Wiens, J. 2001. Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: How the peacock lost its spots. Trends in Ecology & Evolution  16: 517-523.  (13) Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 2003. Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109: 929-950.  (14) Mead, L. S. & Arnold, S. J. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution  19: 264-271.  (15) Mays, H. L. Jr & Hill, G. E. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 554-560.  (16) Clutton-Brock, T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318: 1882-1885.  (17) Akçay, E. & Roughgarden, J. 2007. Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. 9: 855-868.

 

Sexual selection 2: Empirical studies.  (1) Andersson, M. 1982. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature  299: 818-820.  (2) Bakker, T. C. M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363 (1993), pp. 255–257.  (3) Wilkinson, G. S. & Reillo, P. R. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond B 255: 1-6.  (4) Wilkinson, G. S. et al. 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature  391, 276-279.  (5) Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1999. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. PNAS  96: 5083-5088.  (6) Rice, W. R. 1996. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature  381: 232–234.   (7) Shaw, K. L. 2000. Interspecific genetics of mate recognition: inheritance of female acoustic preference in Hawaiian crickets. Evolution  54: 1303–1312.  (8) Johnsen et al. 2000. Female bluethroats enhance immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406: 296-299. (9) Jones, A. G. et al. 2001. Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond B 268: 2531-2535.  Wilson, A. B. et al. 2003. The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57: 1374-1386.  (10) Tarvin, K. A. et al. 2005. Genetic similarity of social mates predicts the level of extrapair paternity in splendid fairy-wrens. Animal Behaviour  70: 945-955.  Eimes et al. 2004. Extrapair fertilization and genetic similarity of social mates in the Mexican jay. Behavioral Ecology 16: 456-461.  (11) Byers, J. A. & Waits, L. 2006. Good genes sexual selection in nature. PNAS  44: 16343-16345.

 

Sexual selection 3: Paradox of the lek.  Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.  (11) Kokko, H., R. Brooks, et al. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 653-664. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, et al. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1331-1340. (12) Jones, T. M., R. J. Quinnell, et al. 1998. Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 265: 1651-1657.  Nature 391: 276-278.  (14) Hoglund, J. & Alatalo, R. V. 1995. “A review of hypotheses”, Chapt 7 from their book Leks. Princeton Univ. Press. (15) Saether, S. A. 2002. Kin selection, female preferences and the evolution of leks: direct benefits may explain kin structuring. (16) Shorey et al 2000. Fine-scale genetic structuring on Mancaus manacus leks. Nature 408: 352-353.

      

Communication: Handicap theory and index signals.  (1) Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-213. (2) Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144: 517-546. (3) Bergstrom, C. T. 2002. Tutorial: Theory of honest signaling. UW website.  (4) Zahavi, A. 2003. Indirect selection and individual selection in sociobiology: My personal views on theories of social behavior. Animal Behaviour  65: 859-863.  (5) Siefferman, L. & Hill, G. E. 2003. Structural and melanin coloration indicate parental effort and reproductive success in male eastern bluebirds. Behavioral Ecology 14: 855-861.  (6) Nowicki, S. Searcy, W. A. & Peters, S. 2002. Quality of song learning affects female response to male bird song. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 269: 1949-1954. (7) Rohwer, S. & Rohwer, F. C. 1978. Status signaling in Harris sparrows: Experimental deceptions achieved. Animal Behaviour 26: 1012-1022.  (8) Petrie, M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371: 598-599.  (9) Enquist, M. 1985. Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Animal Behaviour 33:1152-1161.  (10) Adams, E. S. and R. L. Caldwell. 1990. Deceptive communication in asymmetric fights of the stomatopod crustacean Gonodactylus bredeni. Anim. Behav. 39:706-716.  (11) Backwell, P. R. Y. et al. 2000. Dishonest signaling in a fiddler crab. Proc. R. Soc. London B 267:719-724.  (12) Hurd, P. L. and M. Enquist (2005). A strategic taxonomy of biological communication. Animal Behaviour 70: 1155-1170.  (13) Reby, D. and K. McComb (2003). Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags. Animal Behaviour  65: 519-530. Reby, D., K. McComb, et al. (2005). Red deer stags use formants as assessment cues during intrasexual agonistic interactions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272: 941-947.

 

Phylogenetic approaches to behavior.   (1) Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125: 1-15.  (2) Gittleman, J. L. 1988. The comparative approach in ethology: Aims and limitations. Perspectives in Ethology 8: 55-83.       (3) Ryan, M. J. 1996. Phylogenetics and behavior: some cautions and expectations. pp. 1-21. In: Martins, E. editor, Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford.  (4) Devoogd, T. J., Krebs., J. R., Healy, S. D. & Purvis, A. 1993. Relations between song repertoire size and the volume of brain nuclei related to song: comparative evolutionary analyses amongst oscine birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 254: 75-82.  (5) Winkler, D. W. & Sheldon, F. H. 1993. Evolution of nest construction in swallows: A molecular phylogenetic perspective. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, USA 90: 5705-5707.  (6) Harcourt, A. H., Harvey, P. H., Larson, S. G. & Short, R. V.  1981. Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature 293: 54-56.  (7) van Schaik, C. P. & Kappeler, P. M. 1977. Infanticide risk and evolution of male-female association in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 264: 1687-1694.  (8) Nunn, C. L., Gittleman, J. A. & Antonovics, J. 2000. Promiscuity and the primate immune system. Science 290: 1168-1170.  (9) Kimball, R. T. et al. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the peacock-pheasants indicates loss and reduction of ornamental traits and display behaviours. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 73: 187-198.  (10) Wilson, A. B. et al.  2003.  Phylogeny of seahorses and pipefish, Evolution 57 1374-1386.

 

Animal Mind.  (1) Gallup et al on the mirror test. (2) Epstein et al on ‘self-awareness’ in the pigeon. (3) Hauser on primates' capacity for deception. (4) Staddon, J. E. R. 1988. Animal psychology: The tyranny of anthropocentrism. Pages 123-135 in P. Klopfer & P. P. G. Bateson (eds.) Perspectives in ethology. Vol. 8: Whither ethology?. London: Plenum. (5) Hare, B., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. 2001. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour 61: 139-151. (6) Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C. & Tomasello, M. 2002. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298: 1634-1636. (7) Povinelli, D. J. & Vonk, J. 2003. Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 157-160. (8) Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. 2002. Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, New York 99: 4436-4441.  (9) Clayton, N. S. et al. 2002. Can animals recall the past and plan for the future? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: 685-691.  (10) Dally, J. M. et al. 2006. Food-caching western scrub-jays keep track of who was watching when. Science 312: 1662-1665.

 

Human language learning, bird song learning, chimp language learning.  (1) Marler, P.  1970. Birdsong and speech development: could there be parallels? American Scientist  58: 669-673.  (2) Beecher, M. D. & Brenowitz, E. A. 2005. Functional aspects of song learning in birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution  20: 143-149.  (3) Doupe, A. J. & Kuhl, P. K. 1999. Birdsong and human speech:  Common themes and mechanisms. Annual Review of Neuroscience  22: 567-631.  (4) Kuhl, P. 2007. Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Developmental Science  10: 110-120.  (5) Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science  298: 1569-1579. (6) Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. et al. 1993. Language comprehension in ape and child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development  58: 1-252.

 

Evolutionary psychology.  (1) Tooby & Cosmides primer on evolutionary psychology. (2) Daly, M. & Wilson, M. 1985. Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 197-210.   (3) Wilson, M. & Daly, M. 1997. Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. BMJ 314: 1271. (4) Mulder, M. M. 2004. Are men and women really so different? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 3-6. (5) Various topics and references in evolutionary psychology.

   

Neuroethology.  (1) Bass, A. H. and C. D. Hopkins (1985) Hormonal control of sex differences in the electric organ discharge (EOD) of mormyrid fishes.  Journal of Comparative Physiology A 156: 587-605.  (2) Brenowitz D, Margoliash K, Nordeen W (1997) An Introduction to Birdsong and the Avian Song System. Journal of Neurobiology  33: 495-500.  (3) DeZazzo J, Tully T (1995) Dissection of memory formation: from behavioral pharmacology to molecular genetics. TINS  18: 212-218.  (4) Edwards DH, Kravitz EA (1997) Serotonin, social status and aggression. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 7(6): 812-819.  (5) Glanzman DL (1995) The cellular basis of classical conditioning in Aplysia californicus - it's less simple than you think. TINS  18: 30-36. (6) Hagedorn M, Vischer HA, Heiligenberg W (1992) Development of the jamming avoidance response and its morphological correlates in the Gymnotiform electric fish Eigenmannia. Journal of Neurobiology 23: 1446-1466. (7) Keller, C., H.H. Zakon, and D.Y. Sanchez (1986) Evidence for a direct effect of androgens upon electroreceptor tuning. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 158: 301-310.  (8) Konishi M (2000) Study of sound localization by owls and its relevance to humans. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A 126: 459-469.  (9) Konishi M, Menzel R (2003) Neurobiology of behaviour. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 13: 707-709.  (10) Mason AC, Oshinsky ML, Hoy RR. 2001. Hyperacute directional hearing in a microscale auditory system. Nature 410: 686-690.  (11) Panksepp J, Burgdorf J (2003) ‘‘Laughing’’ rats and the evolutionary antecedents of human joy? Physiology & Behavior 79: 533-547.  (12) Robert D, Amoroso J, Hoy RR (1992) The Evolutionary Convergence of Hearing in a Parasitoid Fly and it’s Cricket Host. Science  258: 1135-1137.  (13) Sisneros, J. A. & Bass, A. H. 2003. Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency selectivity. Journal of Neuroscience  23: 1049-1058.  (14) Teramitsu I, Kudo LC, London SE, Geschwind DH, White SA (2004) Parallel FoxP1 and FoxP2 expression in songbird and human predicts functional interaction. Journal of Neuroscience  24: 3152-3163.

 

Gene Effects on Behavior. (1) Lim, M. M. et al. 2004. Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene. Nature 429: 754-757. (2) Ding, Y.-C. et al. 2002. Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, New York 99: 309-314. (3) commentary on the previous article: Harpending & Cochran 2002. In our genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, New York 99: 10-12. (4) Chen, C. et al. 1999. Variation of dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) allele frequencies around the globe. Evolution & Human Behavior 20: 309-324.

 

Migration and Dispersal: Mechanisms, Genetics, Development.  (1) Emlen, S. T. 1975. The stellar-orientation system of a migratory bird. Scientific American 233: 102-111. (2) Berthold, P. & Pulido, F. 1994. Heritability of migratory activity in a natural bird population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 257: 311-315.  (3) Pulido, F., Berthold, P., Mohr, G. & Querner, U. 2001. Heritability of the timing of autumn migration in a natural bird population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 268: 953-959. (4) Holekamp, K. E. and P. W. Sherman. 1989. Why male ground squirrels disperse. American Scientist 77: 232-239. (5) Froy et al. 2003. Illuminating the circadian clock in monarch butterfly migration. Science 300: 1303-1306. (6) Wiltschko, W. and R. Wiltschko. 2005. Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and other animals. J. Comp. Physiol. A 191: 693.  (7) Mora, C. V.  et al. 2004. Magnetoreception and its trigeminal mediation in the homing pigeon. Nature 432: 508-511.  (8) Walker, M. M. et al. 2002. The magnetic sense and its use in long-distance navigation by animals. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 12: 735-744.