Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple Receivers, Multiple Ornaments, and a Trade‐off between Agonistic and Epigamic Signaling in a Widowbird

Andersson, Staffan, Pryke, Sarah R., Örnborg, Jonas, Lawes, Michael J., Andersson, Malte·2002·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Sexual displays often involve several different ornamental traits. Yet most indicator models of sexual selection based on a single receiver (usually a choosy female) find that multiple handicap signals should be unstable. Here we study reasons for this contradiction, analyzing signal function, signal content, and trade-offs between signals in the polygynous red-collared widowbird Euplectes ardens. Males have both a long, graduated tail and a red carotenoid collar badge. Territory-holding "residents" have slightly shorter tails than the nonbreeding "floaters," but their carotenoid collars are 40% larger, and they have (on the basis of reflectance spectrometry and objective colorimetry) a 23-nm more long-wave ("redder") hue than floaters. This corroborates experimental evidence that the red collar is selected by male contest competition, whereas female choice is based almost exclusively on male tail length. Tail length is negatively correlated with the carotenoid signal, which together with body size and condition explains 55% of the variation in tail length. The trade-off in tail length and carotenoid investment is steeper among residents, suggesting an interaction with costs of territory defense. We propose that the "multiple receiver hypothesis" can explain the coexistence of multiple handicap signals. Furthermore, the trade-off between signal expressions might contribute to the inverse relation between nuptial tail elongation and coloration in the genus Euplectes (bishops and widowbirds).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/342817

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Andersson, S., Pryke, S. R., Örnborg, J., Lawes, M. J., & Andersson, M.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2002-11
Volume
160
Issue
5
Pages
683-691
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2164669465
Cited by
275
References
3
FWCI
17.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Multiple Receivers, Multiple Ornaments, and a Trade‐off between Agonistic and Epigamic Signaling in a Widowbird. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/342817
The paper
Andersson, S., Pryke, S. R., Örnborg, J., Lawes, M. J., & Andersson, M. (2002). Multiple Receivers, Multiple Ornaments, and a Trade‐off between Agonistic and Epigamic Signaling in a Widowbird. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/342817

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.