Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 201

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CAROTENOID LIMITATION AND MATE PREFERENCE EVOLUTION: A TEST OF THE INDICATOR HYPOTHESIS IN GUPPIES (POECILIA RETICULATA)

Grether, Gregory F.·2000·Evolution

Abstract

Under the indicator models of mate choice, female preferences evolve to exploit the condition-dependence or "indicator value" of male traits, which in turn may cause these traits to evolve to elaborate extremes. If the indicator value of a male trait changes, the payoff function of the female preference for that trait should change and the preference should evolve to a new optimum. I tested this prediction in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, a species in which the indicator value of a sexually selected male trait, carotenoid coloration, varies geographically. Carotenoid coloration is thought to be an indicator of foraging ability and health because animals must obtain carotenoid pigments from their diet. The primary dietary source of carotenoids for guppies is unicellular algae, the abundance of which varies among natural streams because of variation in forest canopy cover. Carotenoid availability limits male coloration to a greater extent in streams with greater forest canopy cover. Thus, the indicator value of male coloration covaries positively with canopy cover. To test the indicator model prediction, I measured genetic divergence in the strength of female preferences for carotenoid coloration between high- and low-carotenoid availability streams in each of three river drainages. Second-generation laboratory-born females were given a choice between full-sib males raised on three different dietary levels of carotenoids. For all six populations, male attractiveness (as determined from the responses of females to male courtship displays) increased with dietary carotenoid levels. However, the strength of female preferences differed between populations in the predicted direction in only one of three river drainages. These results fail to support a crucial prediction of the indicator model. More studies taking an interpopulation approach to studying mate preference evolution are needed before the explanatory value of the indicator models can be rigorously assessed.

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 · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00715.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 201

Metadata

Authors
Grether, G. F.
Venue
Evolution
Published
2000-10
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
1712-1724
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
OpenAlex
W2026395382
Cited by
201
References
2
FWCI
7.26
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: CAROTENOID LIMITATION AND MATE PREFERENCE EVOLUTION: A TEST OF THE INDICATOR HYPOTHESIS IN GUPPIES (POECILIA RETICULATA). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00715.x
The paper
Grether, G. F. (2000). CAROTENOID LIMITATION AND MATE PREFERENCE EVOLUTION: A TEST OF THE INDICATOR HYPOTHESIS IN GUPPIES (POECILIA RETICULATA). Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00715.x

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.