Cited by 169Animal Behavior and ReproductionEvolution and Genetic DynamicsEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Mating advantage for rare males in wild guppy populations

Hughes, Kimberly A., Houde, Anne E., Price, Anna C., Rodd, F. Helen·2013·Nature

Abstract

To understand the processes that maintain genetic diversity is a long-standing challenge in evolutionary biology, with implications for predicting disease resistance, response to environmental change, and population persistence. Simple population genetic models are not sufficient to explain the high levels of genetic diversity sometimes observed in ecologically important traits. In guppies (Poecilia reticulata), male colour pattern is both diverse and heritable, and is arguably one of the most extreme examples of morphological polymorphism known. Negative frequency-dependent selection (NFDS), a form of selection in which genotypes are favoured when they are rare, can potentially maintain such extensive polymorphism, but few experimental studies have confirmed its operation in nature. Here we use highly replicated experimental manipulations of natural populations to show that males with rare colour patterns have higher reproductive fitness, demonstrating NFDS mediated by sexual selection. Rare males acquired more mates and sired more offspring compared to common males and, as previously reported, had higher rates of survival. Orange colour, implicated in other studies of sexual selection in guppies, did predict male reproductive success, but only in one of three populations. These data support the hypothesis that NFDS maintains diversity in the colour patterns of male guppies through two selective agents, mates and predators. Similar field-based manipulations of genotype frequencies could provide a powerful approach to reveal the underlying ecological and behavioural mechanisms that maintain genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature12717

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, K. A., Houde, A. E., Price, A. C., & Rodd, F. H.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Lake Forest College (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Kimberly A.
Venue
Nature
Published
2013-10-30
Volume
503
Issue
7474
Pages
108-110
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1979821803
Cited by
169
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 1
FWCI
19.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
Poecilia reticulata, negative frequency-dependent selection, sexual selection, reproductive success, maintenance of genetic variation, female mate choice, predator avoidance, natural populations
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Wild, Female, Fertility, Male, Phenotype, Pigmentation, Poecilia, Predatory Behavior, Selection, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Survival Rate, Models, Animal, Rivers, Mating Preference, Animal, Genetic Fitness

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