The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta‐analysis
Abstract
Biparental care of offspring is both a form of cooperation and a source of conflict. Parents face a trade‐off between current and future reproduction: caring less for the current brood allows individuals to maintain energy reserves and increase their chances of remating. How can selection maintain biparental care, given this temptation to defect? The answer lies in how parents respond to changes in each other’s effort. Game‐theoretical models predict that biparental care is evolutionarily stable when reduced care by one parent leads its partner to increase care, but not so much that it completely compensates for the lost input. Experiments designed to reveal responses to reduced partner effort have mainly focused on birds. We present a meta‐analysis of 54 such studies, and conclude that the mean response was indeed partial compensation. Males and females responded differently and this was in part mediated by the type of manipulation used.
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
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Parental Investment and Sexual Selection
(2017) · Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man · doi:10.4324/9781315129266-7 · Cited by 9,510
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Evolution and the Theory of Games
Smith, J. M. (1988) · Did Darwin Get It Right? · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7862-4_22 · Cited by 7,906
Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: The Darwinian Pivot
(2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315129266 · Cited by 7,252
Evolution and the Theory of Games
Smith, J. M. (1982) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806292 · Cited by 6,922
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
Lenski, G., & Wilson, E. O. (1976) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2576242 · Cited by 6,271
Ecology, Sexual Selection, and the Evolution of Mating Systems
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.327542 · Cited by 6,230
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x · Cited by 3,835
Self-citationEcological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds
Keast, A., & Lack, D. (1970) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/2874 · Cited by 3,812
Cited by
Getting started with meta‐analysis
Harrison, F. (2011) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00056.x · Cited by 253
Self-citationSantema, P., Schlicht, E., & Kempenaers, B. (2019) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00094 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- HARRISON, F., BARTA, Z., CUTHILL, I., & SZÉKELY, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Evolutionary Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-08-19
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1800-1812
- ISSN
- 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
- 1420-9101
- OpenAlex
- W2133143061
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 12.79
- 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: How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01792.x
- The paper
- HARRISON, F., BARTA, Z., CUTHILL, I., & SZÉKELY, T. (2009). How is sexual conflict over parental care resolved? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01792.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.
