Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited

Kraaijeveld, Ken, Kraaijeveld-Smit, Femmie J. L., Maan, Martine E.·2011·Biological Reviews

Abstract

The spectacular diversity in sexually selected traits in the animal kingdom has inspired the hypothesis that sexual selection can promote species divergence. In recent years, several studies have attempted to test this idea by correlating species richness with estimates of sexual selection across phylogenies. These studies have yielded mixed results and it remains unclear whether the comparative evidence can be taken as generally supportive. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis of the comparative evidence and find a small but significant positive overall correlation between sexual selection and speciation rate. However, we also find that effect size estimates are influenced by methodological choices. Analyses that included deeper phylogenetic nodes yielded weaker correlations, and different proxies for sexual selection showed different relationships with species richness. We discuss the biological and methodological implications of these findings. We argue that progress requires more representative sampling and justification of chosen proxies for sexual selection and speciation rate, as well as more mechanistic approaches.

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.1469-185x.2010.00150.x

Cites

60 of 60 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 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Agapow, 2002, MacroCAIC: revealing correlates of species richness by comparative analysis., Diversity and Distributions, 8, 41, 10.1046/j.1366-9516.2001.00121.x · doi:10.1046/j.1366-9516.2001.00121.x
  2. Elias, 2006, Regional seismic song differences in sky island populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold (Araneae, Salticidae)., Journal of Arachnology, 34, 545, 10.1636/S05-77.1 · doi:10.1636/s05-77.1
  3. Mank, 2007, Mating preferences, sexual selection and patterns of cladogenesis in ray-finned fishes., Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 597, 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01251.x · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01251.x
  4. R Development Core Team., 2009, R Foundation for Statistical Computing
  5. Rosenberg, 2000, MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis
  6. Tanaka, 1996, Sexual selection enhances population extinction in a changing environment., Journal of Theoretical Biology, 180, 197, 10.1006/jtbi.1996.0096 · doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0096

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F. J. L., & Maan, M. E.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-13
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
367-377
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
OpenAlex
W2038401598
Cited by
255
References
60
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1602 d)

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: Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00150.x
The paper
Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F. J. L., & Maan, M. E. (2011). Sexual selection and speciation: the comparative evidence revisited. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00150.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.