The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes
Abstract
If, in their partner choice, males seek direct benefits (fecund females), the result will be selection for traits indicating female quality rather than for arbitrary (Fisherian) traits. However, the costs of developing and maintaining the sexually selected traits (ornaments) may reduce the resources available to the female for allocation to reproduction and hence result in lower reproductive success per brood. This hitherto unrecognized fecundity cost of sexually selected traits will constrain both the potency of sexual selection mechanisms and the degree of elaboration of sexually selected traits in females, and can also apply to males which invest in their offspring: sexual selection becomes self-limiting. The fitness implications of these costs are examined for both sexes in a variety of mating and parental care patterns. Sexual selection acting on both sexes may lead to either dimorphism or monomorphism, the latter being the case when the quality indicators chosen by both sexes coincide. Ways of evasion or reduction of these reproductive costs of allocations to sexually selected traits include using different resource components for the ornament and for reproduction, or partitioning the two allocations in time.
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
Cited by
Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals
Stockley, P., & Bro-Jørgensen, J. (2011) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00149.x · Cited by 448
Kokko, H., & Johnstone, R. A. (2002) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0926 · Cited by 359
Female chemical signalling underlying reproduction in mammals
Coombes, H. A., Stockley, P., & Hurst, J. L. (2018) · Journal of Chemical Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10886-018-0981-x · Cited by 98
Johnsson, M., Rubin, C. ‐., Höglund, A., Sahlqvist, A. ‐., Jonsson, K. B., Kerje, S., Ekwall, O., Kämpe, O., Andersson, L., Jensen, P., et al. (2014) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12723 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- FITZPATRICK, S., BERGLUND, A., & ROSENQVIST, G.
- Venue
- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 251-260
- ISSN
- 0024-4066 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137623143
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.48
- 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: Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01063.x
- The paper
- FITZPATRICK, S., BERGLUND, A., & ROSENQVIST, G. (1995). Ornaments or offspring: costs to reproductive success restrict sexual selection processes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1995.tb01063.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.