Editing Behavioral ecology (section)

==Communication and signaling==
{{Main|Animal communication}}

Communication is varied at all scales of life, from interactions between microscopic organisms to those of large groups of people. Nevertheless, the signals used in communication abide by a fundamental property: they must be a quality of the receiver that can transfer information to a receiver that is capable of interpreting the signal and modifying its behavior accordingly. Signals are distinct from cues in that evolution has selected for signalling between both parties, whereas cues are merely informative to the observer and may not have originally been used for the intended purpose. The natural world is replete with examples of signals, from the luminescent flashes of light from [[Firefly|fireflies]], to chemical signaling in [[red harvester ants]] to prominent mating displays of birds such as the [[Guianan cock-of-the-rock]], which gather in [[Lek mating|leks]], the pheromones released by the [[Helicoverpa zea|corn earworm moth]],<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Raina | first1 = Ashok K. | last2 = Klun | first2 = Jerome A. | year = 1984 | title = Brain factor control of sex pheromone production in the female corn earworm moth | journal = Science | volume = 225 | issue = 4661| pages = 531–533 | doi=10.1126/science.225.4661.531 | pmid=17750856| bibcode = 1984Sci...225..531R | s2cid = 40949867 }}</ref> the dancing patterns of the [[blue-footed booby]], or the alarm sound ''[[Synoeca cyanea]]'' make by rubbing their mandibles against their nest.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Gaster-Flagging during Colony Defense in Neotropical Swarm-Founding Wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Epiponini)|last = O'Donnell|first = Sean|date = 1997|journal = Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society }}</ref> Yet other examples are the cases of the [[grizzled skipper]] and ''[[Spodoptera littoralis]]'' where pheromones are released as a sexual recognition mechanism that drives evolution.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hernández-Roldán|first1=Juan L.|last2=Bofill|first2=Roger|last3=Dapporto|first3=Leonardo|last4=Munguira|first4=Miguel L.|last5=Vila|first5=Roger|date=2014-09-01|title=Morphological and chemical analysis of male scent organs in the butterfly genus Pyrgus (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae)|journal=Organisms Diversity & Evolution|language=en|volume=14|issue=3|pages=269–278|doi=10.1007/s13127-014-0170-x|s2cid=15709135|issn=1439-6092|url=https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/13127|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Silverstein|first1=Germund|last2=Löfstedt|first2=Christer|last3=Rosén|first3=Wen Qi|title=Circadian mating activity and effect of pheromone pre-exposure on pheromone response rhythms in the moth Spodoptera littoralis|journal=Journal of Insect Physiology|date=2005|volume=51|issue=3|pages=277–286|doi=10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.11.013|pmid=15749110}}</ref> In a type of mating signal, male orb-weaving spiders of the species ''[[Zygiella x-notata]]'' pluck the signal thread of a female's web with their forelegs. This performance conveys vibratory signals informing the female spider of the male's presence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tarsitano|first1=Michael|last2=Wolfgang|first2=Kirchner|date=2001|title=Vibrational courtship signals of Zygiella x-notata|url=http://britishspiders.org.uk/bulletin/120105.pdf|journal=Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society|volume=12|pages=26–32}}</ref>

The nature of communication poses evolutionary concerns, such as the potential for [[Deception in animals|deceit]] or manipulation on the part of the sender. In this situation, the receiver must be able to anticipate the interests of the sender and act appropriately to a given signal. Should any side gain advantage in the short term, evolution would select against the signal or the response. The conflict of interests between the sender and the receiver results in an evolutionarily stable state only if both sides can derive an overall benefit.

Although the potential benefits of deceit could be great in terms of mating success, there are several possibilities for how dishonesty is controlled, which include indices, [[Zahavi handicap principle|handicaps]], and common interests. Indices are reliable indicators of a desirable quality, such as overall health, fertility, or fighting ability of the organism. Handicaps, as the term suggests, place a restrictive cost on the organisms that own them, and thus lower quality competitors experience a greater relative cost compared to their higher quality counterparts. In the common interest situation, it is beneficial to both sender and receiver to communicate honestly such that the benefit of the interaction is maximized.

Signals are often honest, but there are exceptions. Prime examples of dishonest signals include the luminescent lure of the [[anglerfish]], which is used to attract prey, or the [[Batesian mimicry|mimicry]] of non-poisonous butterfly species, like the [[Batesian mimicry|Batesian]] mimic ''[[Papilio polyxenes]]'' of the poisonous model ''[[Battus philenor]]''.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lederhouse | first1 = Robert C. | last2 = Silvio | first2 = G. Codella Jr | year = 1989 | title = Intersexual Comparison of Mimetic Protection in the Black Swallowtail Butterfly, ''Papilio polyxenes'': Experiments with Captive Blue Jay Predators | doi = 10.2307/2409216 | pmid = 28568560 | journal = Evolution | volume = 43 | issue = 2| pages = 410–420 | jstor = 2409216 }}</ref> Although evolution should normally favor selection against the dishonest signal, in these cases it appears that the receiver would benefit more on average by accepting the signal.