The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems
Open accessAbstract
Two very basic ideas in sexual selection are heavily influenced by numbers of potential mates: the evolution of anisogamy, leading to sex role differentiation, and the frequency dependence of reproductive success that tends to equalize primary sex ratios. However, being explicit about the numbers of potential mates is not typical to most evolutionary theory of sexual selection. Here, we argue that this may prevent us from finding the appropriate ecological equilibria that determine the evolutionary endpoints of selection. We review both theoretical and empirical advances on how population density may influence aspects of mating systems such as intrasexual competition, female choice or resistance, and parental care. Density can have strong effects on selective pressures, whether or not there is phenotypic plasticity in individual strategies with respect to density. Mating skew may either increase or decrease with density, which may be aided or counteracted by changes in female behaviour. Switchpoints between alternative mating strategies can be density dependent, and mate encounter rates may influence mate choice (including mutual mate choice), multiple mating, female resistance to male mating attempts, mate searching, mate guarding, parental care, and the probability of divorce. Considering density-dependent selection may be essential for understanding how populations can persist at all despite sexual conflict, but simple models seem to fail to predict the diversity of observed responses in nature. This highlights the importance of considering the interaction between mating systems and population dynamics, and we strongly encourage further work in this area.
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
BARTON, N. H. (1999) · Genetical Research · doi:10.1017/s001667239900422x · Cited by 181
Mate fidelity and coloniality in waterbirds: a comparative analysis
Dubois, F., Cézilly, F., & Pagel, M. (1998) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420050607 · Cited by 59
Cited by
Sexual fidelity trade-offs promote regulatory variation in the prairie vole brain
Okhovat, M., Berrio, A., Wallace, G., Ophir, A. G., & Phelps, S. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac5791 · Cited by 155
Conserved transcriptomic profiles underpin monogamy across vertebrates
Young, R. L., Ferkin, M. H., Ockendon-Powell, N. F., Orr, V. N., Phelps, S. M., Pogány, Á., Richards-Zawacki, C. L., Summers, K., Székely, T., Trainor, B. C., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1813775116 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Kokko, H., & Rankin, D. J.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2006-01-04
- Volume
- 361
- Issue
- 1466
- Pages
- 319-334
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2134291129
- Cited by
- 722
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 38.71
- 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
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.