Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/27978384?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Science
expectation, females did not always prefer male producing one. As a result, in the case dinner. A female in a hurry might discrim
to approach the speaker producing the most of male tungara frogs, both the additional inate between males only when the chuck
chucks. Instead, female preference strongly benefits of attracting a female and the costs ratio is small and detecting a difference is
depended upon the "chuck ratio" between of being eaten decrease as chuck number easy. The difference might also mean that
the two calls: Although females strongly increases. This adds weight to the idea that the selected male's neighbor can't keep up,
preferred calls with three chucks compared female discrimination is acting as a brake on so the female really has chosen the best
to those with one chuck, they cared little lengthening calls. male (at least locally). Although psycho
more for three-chuck calls than they did for These findings raise an intriguing ques physics might describe how a choice can
two-chuck calls. The findings suggest that tion: Why do some males produce calls with become increasingly difficult, it does not
female discrimination constrains the pro up to seven chucks, despite evidence show explain whether a female is prepared to pay
duction of longer calls. ing that increasing chuck number by more the cost of solving that increasing discrimi
Where does that leave predators?which than two is pointless for attracting unaware nation problem (9). Might this explain why
are often seen as the opposing selective females? Males respond to the calls of other elaboration of male traits varies across spe
force to female preference?in the evolution males by increasing their chuck number by cies: Female peacocks are prepared to take
of male traits? Although males benefit from one (7). This suggests that, during com their time to compare and contrast males,
bigger or more conspicuous traits that attract petitions with neighboring males, male whereas tungara females are not?
more mates, these traits can also make it frogs can distinguish chuck number, even
References
easier for predators to find and catch males beyond those differences distinguishable to
1. S. Andersson, Sexual Selection (Princeton Univ. Press,
(8). Akre et al. explored this question by females. Do male tungara frogs differ from Princeton, N], 1994).
observing the behavior of frog-eating bats. females in their discriminatory abilities? Or 2. M. Bateson, S. D. Healy, Trends Ecoi Evol. 20, 659
(2005).
Remarkably, the bats, like female frogs, pre do they just have more time to listen to their
3. S. R. Pryke, S. Andersson, Behav. Ecoi 19,1116 (2008).
ferred males that produced calls with more neighbors' calls than do females looking for 4. K. L Akre, H. E. Farris, A. . Lea, R. A. Page, M. J. Ryan,
chucks, but their preference also decreased a mate? Science 333, 751(2011).
as the chuck ratio became larger. This sug One way to approach these questions is to 5. . Treisman, Psychoi Rev. 71, 314 (1964).
6. X. E. Bernal, R. A. Page, A. S. Rand, M. J. Ryan, Am. Nat.
gests that male calls may not become more consider the female's point of view. Females,
169, 409 (2007).
conspicuous to the bats as the calls get lon after all, are caught in a bind: They need to 7. X. E. Bernal, . L. Akre, A. T. Baugh, A. S. Rand, . ].
ger. Instead, the risk associated with add choose a good male before being eaten. The Ryan, Behav. Ecoi Sociobiol. 63,1269 (2009).
8. . Zuk, G. R. Kolluru, Q. Rev. Biol. 73, 415 (1998).
ing an extra chuck declines: A male produc female who chooses a good male quickly is
9. L. Chittka, P. Skorupski, . E. Raine, Trends Ecoi Evol.
ing three chucks next to a male producing likely to produce offspring, while the female 24, 400 (2009).
two exposes himself less to pr?dation than who sits listening to a chorus trying to deter
mine which male is best may become a bat's 10.1126/science.l210723
does a male producing two chucks next to a
PHYSICS
A plasmonks-based design approach is
Lasers are the workhorse of the pumped though it was diffraction limited
than the excitation or emitted photons, and
have emerged as a promising solution because
information age, sending massive to of its nonplasmonic nature. Later,
a nanolaser showing plasmonic charac
overcome such a barrier (i). In 2003, the
amounts of light packets through
vast networks of optic fibers. Demands for surface plasmon laser or "spaser" was theo ter with one-dimensional confinement was
ever-increasing speed and functionalitiesretically proposed. The idea was to tightly demonstrated (4). The large resistive losses
call for scaling down of photonic devices, confine light in the form of localized plas associated with the metal required cryo
similar to the trend in electronics. Howmons into deep subwavelength dimensions genic temperatures for laser operation. In
ever, photonic devices face the fundamentaloverlapping with a gain medium to achieve a different approach, core-shell colloidal
stimulated emission and light amplification
challenge of the diffraction limit of light?a particles suspended in water were optically
or lasing, creating a coherent light source
limitation that prevents squeezing light into pumped with localized plasmons bound
spaces smaller than half of its wavelength.at the nanometer scale (2). That proposalto the surface of a metal particle (5). The
This barrier limits traditional optical com is now being realized with several plas 40-nm core-shell particle consisted of a
ponents to sizes that are hundreds of timesmonics-based design approaches being gold core as a plasmonic cavity covered by
used to fabricate nanometer-scale coherent
larger than that of their electronic counter a shell of silica decorated with dye mole
parts. Surface plasmons are collective elec light sources. cules that provided the gain. Although this
tronic oscillations on a metal-dielectric The "gold-finger" laser was the first nanoparticle approach provides the ultimate
interface with a much smaller wavelength experimental attempt using metals to con scaling down in all three dimensions, its
fine the optical energy to lasing (3). A tiny optical mode extends appreciably outside
compound semiconductor pillar was used the structure, and electrical connections are
NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center, 3112
as a
Etcheverry Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA gain medium and wrapped in a thin difficult to implement.
94720, E-mail: xiang@berkeley.edu gold layer. This small laser was electrically One of the major challenges confronting
the device footprint, the fundamental dif Purcell enhancement broadband in nature, 15. G. Bjork, Y. Yamamoto, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 27, z
Z
fraction limit remains because their modes which could lead to uitrafast lasers with the 2386(1991).
u