Conflict over resources generates conflict over mate choice: Reply to Smaldino and Newson

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.12.004Evolutionary computer simulations are an important part of the theoretical biologist's toolkit (Peck, 2004; DeAngelis & Mooij, 2005; Kokko, 2007), offering insights into a range of fundamental evolutionary processes, not least sexual selection (e.g. van Doorn & Weissing 2004, 2006; Fawcett et al., 2007, 2011; van Doorn et al., 2009; reviewed in Kuijper et al., 2012). Like all theoretical tools, they must be used with care (Hamblin, 2012). Smaldino & Newson (2013, henceforth S&N) have challenged our recent work on parent–offspring conflict over mate choice (Van den Berg et al., 2013), arguing that our simulations rely on unrealistic assumptions and that our conclusions are not supported. But all four points of criticism they present are misguided. (1) The accusation that the handicap principle cannot work in our model is wrong; Fig. 1a in Van den Berg et al. (2013) clearly demonstrates that a costly preference for a signal of male quality does evolve. (2) The assertion that mutation bias drove male quality close to zero in our model is wrong; in fact, male quality reached very high, stable levels in our simulations. (3) The assertion that overcompensation was responsible for our results is wrong; parent and offspring preferences also diverge in the absence of overcompensation. (4) The alternative explanation offered for our results is wrong, because it predicts the opposite pattern to that we actually observed in our simulations. Below we address each of these misunderstandings and consider two alternative hypotheses suggested by S&

Variation in Decision Making

publication-status: PublishedVariation in how organisms allocate their behavior over their lifetimes is key to determining Darwinian fitness, and thus the evolution of human and non-human decision making. In this chapter, we explore how decision making varies across biologically and societally significant scales and what role such variation plays when trying to understand decision making from an evolutionary perspective. In the process, we highlight the importance of explicitly considering variation both when attempting to predict economically and socially important patterns of behavior, and to obtain a deeper understanding of the fundamental biological processes involved. We conclude by identifying key elements of a framework for incorporating variation into a general theory of Darwinian decision making

Competition for nutrients and light among phytoplankton species in a mixed water column: Theoretical studies

A brief overview is given of modelling studies that aim to analyse the effects of nutrient and light limitations on the development of phytoplankton communities and lead to a qualitative understanding of the competitive interactions involved

Oscillations and chaos generated by competition for interactively essential resources

Recent theory shows that: (i) competition between multiple species for multiple resources may generate oscillations and chaotic fluctuations in species abundances; and (ii) these non-equilibrium dynamics may favor a high biodiversity. These findings were based on Liebig's Law of the Minimum, which assumes that each species is limited by only one resource at a time. In reality, however, resources can have interactive effects on growth. Here, we investigate whether competition for interactively essential resources may generate oscillations and chaos as well. Our results show that competition for interactively essential resources may, indeed, exhibit dynamics of similar complexity. This illustrates the wide potential for non-equilibrium dynamics generated by multispecies competition, and suggests that competitive chaos may occur on a wide variety of different resource types