Phil

Question 1

Natural selection

Answer 1

Favourable genetic traits become more common in successive generations

Question 2

Optimisation

Answer 2

Traits that lead to greater evolution efficiency become more common over time. New mutations that have high efficiency are favourable –> this theory is mathematically demanding

Question 3

Objections to optimisation theory

Answer 3

Rule of thumb= of forage is bad move into a new area BUT is that too simplistic? There are many neural, hormonal, sensory etc mechanisms that govern actions as well as interactions with genes
Behaviour is no less likely to reach optimality than other such complex systems eg crisis

Not everything is adapted to the purpose to which it is used. Alleles can be randomly fixed and behaviours may occur because morphology dictates its necessity

How can optima evolve when environment is constantly changing

Untestable- we dont now what animals seek to optimise nor available strategies

Question 4

Counterarguments to the objections of optimisation theory

Answer 4

Optimisation refers to a solution within given boundaries = constraints. Theory devoted to optimisation under uncertainty. Micro environments may remain stable for a long time. We can test hypotheses about currencies and constraints

Question 5

Is optimisation theory useful?

Answer 5

Allow testable predictions to me made–> applied outcomes

gives better insight into currencies and constraints

explore logic of behaviour and understanding, assumptions made clear

emphasizes generality of problems for multiple taxa
eg why aren’t all animals generalists?

BUT

fitness= only true measure of optimality (number of descendants–> p a trait is perpetuated)

Intake rate is a poor proxy because animals dont always eat as much as they can (because fat, predation exposure etc)

Constraints emerge from trade offs eg foraging causes feather wear in birds

Question 6

Models in behaviour ecology

Observation

Answer 6

Hypotheses emerge from observation
Much data collects is also observation eg food preference/availability, genetic influences on behaviour , natural experiments

BUT

typically fail to consider alternate hypotheses rigorously. Fail to quantify ecological variable (very subjective). Fail to disentangle cause and effect. May just identify alternative solution to same problem –> no solution driven by ecological features examined (?). Seldom amendable to statistical examination

Stats assume all spp independent but that isnt how evolution works so we should use independent phylogenetic contrasts

Behavioural ecology relies foremost on this