Principi del handicap

De Viquipèdia
Salta a: navegació, cerca
La cua paó blau és un exemple del principi de handicap.

El principi del handicap és una hipòtesi proposada originalment en 1975 pel biòleg Amotz Zahavi per explicar com l'evolució pot fer que es produeixin senyals de bones intencions entre animals que tenen una motivació òbvia per enganyar a l'altre o per enganyar-se mútuament.

El principi del handicap suggereix que aquests senyals han de comportar un cost per al portador, ja que aquests senyals consisteixen en alguna característica que no pot ser afrontada per altres individus. Per exemple, en el cas de la selecció sexual, la teoria suggereix que els individus amb gran eficàcia biològica mostren aquest estatut mitjançant un comportament desavantatjós o una constitució física que minva les seves qualitats en altres terrenys. La idea central és que els trets de la selecció sexual actuen com a senyals d'ostentació, mostrant la capacitat de donar-se el luxe de desaprofitar un recurs simplement per malbaratament. El receptor sap que el tret indica qualitat perquè individus de qualitat inferior no poden permetre el luxe de tals malbarataments extravagants. Per exemple, la cua del paó permet discernir la qualitat del mascle, però al mateix temps és una extremitat enutjosa i pesant.

Bibliografia[modifica | modifica el codi]

1.^ Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.

2.^ Zahavi, A. (1977) The cost of honesty (Further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 603-605.

3.^ Zahavi, A. and Zahavi, A. (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press. Oxford. ISBN 0-19-510035-2

4.^ Review by Andrew Pomiankowski, A. & Iwasa, Y. 1998. Handicap Signaling: Loud and True? Evolution, 52, 928-932

5.^ a b c d Johnstone, R.A. (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence" Biological Reviews 70 1-65.

6.^ Johnstone, R.A. (1997) The evolution of animal signals, In Behavioural Ecology: an evolutionary approach 4th ed., J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, editors. Blackwell. Oxford, pp:155-178.

7.^ Maynard Smith, J. and Harper, D. (2003) Animal Signals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-852685-7.

8.^ Davis, J. W. F., & O’Donald, P. (1976). Sexual selection for a handicap: A critical analysis of Zahavi’s model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 57, 345–354.

9.^ Eshel, I. (1978). On the handicap principle — a critical defence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 70, 245–250

10.^ Kirkpatrick, M (1986) The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist 127:222-240.

11.^ Pomiankowski, A. (1987). Sexual selection: The handicap principle does work sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Series B, 231, 123–145.

12.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1976). Sexual selection and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 57, 239–242

13.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The handicap principle — a comment. Journal of Theoretical Biology,70, 251–252

14.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1985). Mini review: Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 115, 1–8.

15.^ Grafen, A. (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546.

16.^ Spence, A.M. (1973) Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87:355-374.

17.^ Getty, T. (1998) Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 56, 127–130

18.^ Getty, T. (1998) Reliable signalling need not be a handicap. Anim. Behav. 56, 253–255

19.^ Getty, T. (2002) Signaling health versus parasites. Am. Nat. 159,363–371

20.^ Getty. T (2006) Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol. & Evol 21, 83-88

21.^ Nur, N. and Hasson, O. (1984) Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110, 275–297

22.^ Godfray, H.C.J. 1991. Signalling of need by offspring to their parents, Nature 352 328-330.

23.^ Yachi, S. 1995. How can honest signalling evolve? The role of the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B 262 283-288.

24.^ Adams, E.S. & Mesterton-Gibbons, M. 1995. The cost of threat displays and the stability of deceptive communication. Journal of Theoretical Biology 175 405-421.

25.^ Kim, Y-G. 1995. Status signalling games in animal contests. Journal of Theoretical Biology 176, 221-231.

26.^ Enquist, M. 1985. Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Animal Behaviour 33 1152-1161.

27.^ Rodriguez-Girones, M.A., Cotton, P.A. & Kacelnik, A. 1996. The evolution of begging: signaling and sibling competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93:14637-14641.

28.^ Lachmann, M. & Bergstrom, C.T. 1998. Signalling among relatives. II. Beyond the tower of babel. Theoretical Population Biology, 54:146-160.

29.^ Bliege Bird, R. and Smith, E. A. (2005). Signalling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221-248.

30.^ Folstad, I. & Karter, A.K. (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist 139:603-622.

31.^ Wedekind, C. and Folstad, I. (1994) Adaptive or non-adaptive immunosuppression by sex hormones? American Naturalist 143:936-38.

32.^ Folstad, I. & Sakrstein, F. (1996) Is male germ line control creating avenues for female choice? Behavioral Ecology 8:109-112

33.^ Roberts, M.L., Buchanan K.L., Evans, M.R. (2004). Testing the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: a review of the evidence. Animal Behaviour. 68:227-239

34.^ For footage of this, see Attenborough, D. (1990) The Trials of Life, Episode 10. BBC