Resent research has looked at the "peacock problem" or Costly Signaling Theory where the classic example is a peacock's long and eye-catching train of feathers. In this theory, the size, color and overall extravagance of the peacock's train of feathers is said to strongly indicate a male peafowl's overall gene quality. A peacock with a long train of feathers is more likely to be strong and resilient when it has such a large train of feathers because it can potentially hinder the peacock in catching the attention of potential predators. It also indicates that the peacock has used a large amount of metabolic-energy and resources in order to take care of such a large tail even though it is useless in every aspect of the peacock's life (with the exception of courtship and attracting mates of course). As Loyau et al. (2005) put it, "a high-quality tail is an honest signal of good genes because only those peacocks who are in good health and who have the traits required to survive and acquire abundant supplies of food can afford to waste their energy and resources to grow and maintain this showy and nutritionally costly ornament." But Gerhand Adam has questioned this "classic" example of the costly signaling theory and has stated that there is no empirical or sufficient evidence that is able to draw a correlation between the size of a peacock's train of feathers and its rate of mortality. A higher vulnerability to predation must be demonstrated in those peacocks with larger and more colorful tails. Furthermore, Adam goes onto say that the "peacock problem" in relation to a peacock's train of feathers is often based on assumptions and that there is not sufficient evidence that a peacock's train is indicative of a peacock's gene quality or overall ability to survive. Thus more research must be done in order to draw conclusive conclusions on the relationship between a peacock's tail and its ultimate survival value.
Sources: Science 2.0: Explore the Revolution
No comments:
Post a Comment