The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement
Abstract
In Darwin's and Fisher's theory of sexual selection, females prefer ornamented males; the evolution of larger ornaments is limited by increased mortality, lor example through predation. An adornment of given size should often raise mortality more in low than in high quality phenotypes. Possible consequences for the evolution and optimal size of ornaments are here examined with mathematical models. Fisher suggested that an ormamem may evolve if it initially improves male survival. Female preference then spreads for adorned males. Their consequent mating advantage furthers propagation of the preferred trail. An alternative, the ‘handicap mechanism’, suggests that only those males best able to survive can do so with a large, handicapping ornament. Choosing adorned males, females might therefore bear offspring with high general survivorship, but sons also inherit the handicapping ornament. When it reduces survival more in low than in high quality phenotypes, the handicap mechanism (in conjunction with the Fisherian mating advantage) becomes powerful with lower heritability of fitness than previously supposed. It still requires that fitness has some heritability, for which there is indirect evidence, but field measurements are lacking. In Darwin's and Fisher's theory, both mating advantage and mortality disadvantage increase with ornament size, and balance at its optimal development. If a given adornment reduces survival most in low quality phenotypes, the optimum increases with phenotypic quality. Ornament size then may provide a measure of fitness, and can be used in mate choice. A male can usually not gain fitness by developing larger adornments than other males of the same quality. Ornaments can probably also evoke through direct competition between males, without female pREFERENCES for adorned males. Field experiments are needed to clarify this and other aspects of sexual selection. Sexual ornaments form part of the reproductive effort. Certain predictions from life-history theory should therefore apply. One is that ornaments will increase in size over the first few reproductive seasons; this is the case in many species.
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
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Zahavi, A. (1975) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 · Cited by 5,251
Life-History Tactics: A Review of the Ideas
Stearns, S. C. (1976) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/409052 · Cited by 3,557
On the Evolution of Mating Systems in Birds and Mammals
Orians, G. H. (1969) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282628 · Cited by 1,511
Hawks and Doves: Factors Affecting Success and Selection in Goshawk Attacks on Woodpigeons
Kenward, R. E. (1978) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/3793 · Cited by 539
Cited by
Parasites, Bright Males, and the Immunocompetence Handicap
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285346 · Cited by 2,799
Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success
Gibson, R. M., & Bradbury, J. W. (1985) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/bf00299040 · Cited by 223
Livezey, B. C. (2003) · Ornithological Monographs · doi:10.2307/40168337 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- ANDERSSON, M.
- Venue
- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1982-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 375-393
- ISSN
- 0024-4066 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134886311
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.97
- 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
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.