Evolution of signal form

Visual signals, used for communication both within and between species, vary immensely in the forms that they take. How is it that all this splendour has evolved in nature? Since it is the receiver’s preferences that cause selective pressures on signals, elucidating the mechanism behind the response of the signal receiver is vital to gain a closer understanding of the evolutionary process. In my thesis I have therefore investigated how receivers, represented by chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, respond to different stimuli displayed on a peck-sensitive computer screen. According to the receiver bias hypothesis, animals and humans often express biases when responding to certain stimuli. These biases develop as by-products of how the recognition mechanism categorises and discriminates between stimuli. Since biases are generated from general stimulus processing mechanisms, they occur irrespective of species and type of signal, and it is often possible to predict the direction and intensity of the biases. One of the results from the experiments in my thesis demonstrates that similar experience in different species may generate similar biases. By giving chickens at least some of the experience of human faces as humans presumably have, the chickens subsequently expressed preferences for the same faces as a group of human subjects. Another kind of experience generated a bias for symmetry. This bias developed in the context of training chickens to recognise two mirror images of an asymmetrical stimulus. Untrained chickens and chickens trained on only one of the mirror images expressed no symmetry preferences. The bias produced by the training regime was for a specific symmetrical stimulus which had a strong resemblance to the familiar asymmetrical exemplar, rather than a general preference for symmetry. A further kind of experience, training chickens to respond to some stimuli but not to others, generated a receiver bias for exaggerated stimuli, whereas chickens trained on reversed stimuli developed a bias for less exaggerated stimuli. To investigate the potential of this bias to drive the evolution of signals towards exaggerated forms, a simplified evolutionary process was mimicked. The stimuli variants rejected by the chickens were eliminated, whereas the selected forms were kept and evolved prior to the subsequent display. As a result, signals evolved into exaggerated forms in all tested stimulus dimensions: length, intensity and area, despite the inclusion of a cost to the sender for using increasingly exaggerated signals. The bias was especially strong and persistent for stimuli varying along the intensity dimension where it remained despite extensive training. All the results in my thesis may be predicted by the receiver bias hypothesis. This implies that biases, developed due to stimuli experience, may be significant mechanisms driving the evolution of signal form.

Global trade, food production and ecosystem support : Making the interactions visible

Modern food production is a complex, globalized system in which what we eat and how it is produced are increasingly disconnected. This thesis examines some of the ways in which global trade has changed the mix of inputs to food and feed, and how this affects food security and our perceptions of sustainability. One useful indicator of the ecological impact of trade in food and feed products is the Appropriated Ecosystem Areas (ArEAs), which estimates the terrestrial and aquatic areas needed to produce all the inputs to particular products. The method is introduced in Paper I and used to calculate and track changes in imported subsidies to Swedish agriculture over the period 1962-1994. In 1994, Swedish consumers needed agricultural areas outside their national borders to satisfy more than a third of their food consumption needs. The method is then applied to Swedish meat production in Paper II to show that the term “Made in Sweden” is often a misnomer. In 1999, almost 80% of manufactured feed for Swedish pigs, cattle and chickens was dependent on imported inputs, mainly from Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. Paper III examines ecosystem subsidies to intensive aquaculture in two nations: shrimp production in Thailand and salmon production in Norway. In both countries, aquaculture was shown to rely increasingly on imported subsidies. The rapid expansion of aquaculture turned these countries from fishmeal net exporters to fishmeal net importers, increasingly using inputs from the Southeastern Pacific Ocean. As the examined agricultural and aquacultural production systems became globalized, levels of dependence on other nations’ ecosystems, the number of external supply sources, and the distance to these sources steadily increased. Dependence on other nations is not problematic, as long as we are able to acknowledge these links and sustainably manage resources both at home and abroad. However, ecosystem subsidies are seldom recognized or made explicit in national policy or economic accounts. Economic systems are generally not designed to receive feedbacks when the status of remote ecosystems changes, much less to respond in an ecologically sensitive manner. Papers IV and V discuss the problem of “masking” of the true environmental costs of production for trade. One of our conclusions is that, while the ArEAs approach is a useful tool for illuminating environmentally-based subsidies in the policy arena, it does not reflect all of the costs. Current agricultural and aquacultural production methods have generated substantial increases in production levels, but if policy continues to support the focus on yield and production increases alone, taking the work of ecosystems for granted, vulnerability can result. Thus, a challenge is to develop a set of complementary tools that can be used in economic accounting at national and international scales that address ecosystem support and performance. We conclude that future resilience in food production systems will require more explicit links between consumers and the work of supporting ecosystems, locally and in other regions of the world, and that food security planning will require active management of the capacity of all involved ecosystems to sustain food production.