The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Good-genes effects in sexual selection
Open accessAbstract
The magnitude of the effect of good genes as a viability benefit accruing to choosy females remains a controversial theoretical and empirical issue. We collected all available data from the literature to estimate the magnitude of good–genes viability effects, while adjusting for sample size. The average correlation coefficient between male traits and offspring survival in 22 studies was 0.122, which differed highly significantly from zero. This implies that male characters chosen by females reveal on average 1.5%of the variance in viability. The studies demonstrated considerable heterogeneity in effect size; some of this heterogeneity could be accounted for by differences among taxa (birds demonstrating stronger effects), and by differences in the degree of mating skew in the species (high skew reflecting stronger effects). Although these results suggest that viability–based sexual selection is widespread across taxa, they indicate that the effect is relatively minor. Finally, there was also an effect of publication year in that the more recent studies reported reduced effects. This may reflect publication biases during paradigm shifts of this debated issue, but it should also be recalled that the studies have only partly estimated the full fitness consequences of mate choice for offspring.
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
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Cited by
Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications
Sheldon, B. C. (2000) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01953-4 · Cited by 688
Cotton, S., Fowler, K., & Pomiankowski, A. (2004) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2688 · Cited by 625
How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists?
Møller, A., & Jennions, M. D. (2002) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0952-2 · Cited by 553
Self-citationGurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S., & Jones, M. H. (2001) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(01)32013-5 · Cited by 421
Evolutionary Biology of Animal Cognition
Dukas, R. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130152 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Møller, A. P., & Alatalo, R. V.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1999-01-07
- Volume
- 266
- Issue
- 1414
- Pages
- 85-91
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2046104292
- Cited by
- 533
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.44
- 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: Good-genes effects in sexual selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.1999.0607
- The paper
- Møller, A. P., & Alatalo, R. V. (1999). Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0607
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.