The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The use of multiple cues in mate choice
Open accessAbstract
An increasing number of studies find females to base their mate choice on several cues. Why this occurs is debated and many different hypotheses have been proposed. Here I review the hypotheses and the evidence in favour of them. At the same time I provide a new categorisation based on the adaptiveness of the preferences and the information content of the cues. A few comparative and empirical studies suggest that most multiple cues are Fisherian attractiveness cues or uninformative cues that occur alongside a viability indicator and facilitate detection, improve signal reception, or are remnants from past selection pressures. However, much evidence exists for multiple cues providing additional information and serving as multiple messages that either indicate general mate quality or enable females that differ in mate preferences to choose the most suitable male. Less evidence exists for multiple cues serving as back‐up signals. The importance of receiver psychology, multiple sensory environments and signal interaction in the evolution of multiple cues and preferences has received surprisingly little attention but may be of crucial importance. Similarly, sexual conflict has been proposed to result in maladaptive preferences for manipulative cues, and in neutral preferences for threshold cues, but no reliable evidence exists so far. An important factor in the evolution of multiple preferences is the cost of using additional cues. Most theoretical work assumes that the cost of choice increases with the number of cues used, which restricts the conditions under which preferences for multiple cues are expected to evolve. I suggest that in contrast to this expectation, the use of multiple cues can reduce mate choice costs by decreasing the number of mates inspected more closely or the time and energy spent inspecting a set of mates. This may be one explanation for why multiple cues are more common than usually expected. Finally I discuss the consequences that the use of multiple cues may have for the process of sexual selection, the maintenance of genetic variation, and speciation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Zahavi, A. (1975) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 · Cited by 5,251
Cited by
Parasite Manipulation of Host Behavior
Poulin, R. (2010) · Advances in the Study of Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(10)41005-0 · Cited by 503
Johnson, Z. V., & Young, L. J. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.034 · Cited by 242
Revisiting social recognition systems in invertebrates
Gherardi, F., Aquiloni, L., & Tricarico, E. (2012) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0513-y · Cited by 73
Scent-marking strategies of a solitary carnivore: boundary and road scent marking in the leopard
Rafiq, K., Jordan, N. R., Meloro, C., Wilson, A. M., Hayward, M. W., Wich, S. A., & McNutt, J. W. (2020) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.12.016 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- CANDOLIN, U.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 575-595
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2150153307
- Cited by
- 1,346
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The use of multiple cues in mate choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1464793103006158
- The paper
- CANDOLIN, U. (2003). The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793103006158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.