A mismatch between the perceived fighting signal and fighting ability reveals survival and physiological costs for bearers.

Signals of fighting indicate an animal's intention to attack and so they serve to prevent costly aggressive encounters. However, according to theory, a signal that is different in design (i.e. a novel signal) but that fails to inform fighting intentions will result in negative fitness consequences for the bearer. In the present study we used males of the territorial damselfly Hetaerina americana, which have a red wing spot during territory defense that has evolved as a signal of fighting ability. By producing a novel signal (covering the red spot with blue ink) in territory owners, we investigated: a) the behavioral responses by conspecific males; b) survival cost and c) three physiological mediators of impaired survival: muscular fat reserves, muscle mass and immune ability. We predicted that males with the novel signal would be attacked more often by conspecifics as the former would fail to convey fighting ability and intentions adequately. This will result in lower survival and physiological condition for the novel signal bearers. We found that, compared to control males (males whose red spot was not changed), experimental males had reduced survival, were less able to hold a territory, and had a reduced muscle mass. It seems that spot modified males were not able to effectively communicate their territory tenancy, which may explain why they lost their defended sites. Our results provide support for theoretical models that a novel signal that fails to informing fighting ability may lead to a fitness cost for bearers.