ReviewEcology and evolution2016
A conceptual review of mate choice: stochastic demography, within-sex phenotypic plasticity, and individual flexibility.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis reveals that animal sexual signalling behaviour is honest and resource based.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Pooled it
- Male Mating Behaviour Is Shaped by Previous Experience of Both Conspecific and Heterospecific Females in the Seed BugEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Novel insights into courtship and mating behavior of Anastatus japonicus enhance pest control and mass-rearing efficiency.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Polyandrous females but not monogamous females vary in reproductive ageing patterns in the bean bug Riptortus pedestris.BMC ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Male mating preference in an ixodid tick.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Natural variation in social conditions affects male mate choosiness in the amphipodCurrent zoology · 2022Article
- Why do we pick similar mates, or do we?Biology letters · 2021Review
- Juvenile Experience with Male Cues Triggers Cryptic Choice Mechanisms in Adult Female Redback Spiders.Insects · 2021Article
- Implications of size-selective fisheries on sexual selection.Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Black widows as plastic wallflowers: female choosiness increases with indicators of high mate availability in a natural population.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Mate choice in the eye and ear of the beholder? Female multimodal sensory configuration influences her preferences.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Article
- Mate choice, sexual selection, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.Hormones and behavior · 2018Review
- Commentary on Kehl et al. "Young male mating success is associated with sperm number but not with male sex pheromone titres": Unnatural experimental conditions inflate the importance of male courtship activity on mating success in a butterfly.Frontiers in zoology · 2018Article
- Testing a key assumption in animal communication: between-individual variation in female visual systems alters perception of male signals.Biology open · 2017Article
- Fighting over defense chemicals disrupts mating behavior.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
- The effect of individual state on the strength of mate choice in females and males.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mate choice hypotheses usually focus on trait variation of chosen individuals. Recently, mate choice studies have increasingly attended to the environmental circumstances affecting variation in choosers' behavior and choosers' traits. We reviewed the literature on phenotypic plasticity in mate choice with the goal of exploring whether phenotypic plasticity can be interpreted as individual flexibility in the context of the switch point theorem, SPT (Gowaty and Hubbell 2009). We found >3000 studies; 198 were empirical studies of within-sex phenotypic plasticity, and sixteen showed no evidence of mate choice plasticity. Most studies reported changes from choosy to indiscriminate behavior of subjects. Investigators attributed changes to one or more causes including operational sex ratio, adult sex ratio, potential reproductive rate, predation risk, disease risk, chooser's mating experience, chooser's age, chooser's condition, or chooser's resources. The studies together indicate that "choosiness" of potential mates is environmentally and socially labile, that is, induced - not fixed - in "the choosy sex" with results consistent with choosers' intrinsic characteristics or their ecological circumstances mattering more to mate choice than the traits of potential mates. We show that plasticity-associated variables factor into the simpler SPT variables. We propose that it is time to complete the move from questions about within-sex plasticity in the choosy sex to between- and within-individual flexibility in reproductive decision-making of both sexes simultaneously. Currently, unanswered empirical questions are about the force of alternative constraints and opportunities as inducers of individual flexibility in reproductive decision-making, and the ecological, social, and developmental sources of similarities and differences between individuals. To make progress, we need studies (1) of simultaneous and symmetric attention to individual mate preferences and subsequent behavior in both sexes, (2) controlled for within-individual variation in choice behavior as demography changes, and which (3) report effects on fitness from movement of individual's switch points.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.