ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019
On the architecture of mate choice decisions: preference functions and choosiness are distinct traits.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- When sexual selection through mate choice depletes versus exaggerates genetic variation: Unraveling the lek paradox.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- How relaxed preferences facilitate the evolution of novel animal signals.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- The neurodevelopmental genes alan shepard and Neuroglian contribute to female mate preference in African Drosophila melanogaster.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2024Article
- C. elegans males optimize mate-preference decisions via sex-specific responses to multimodal sensory cues.Current biology : CB · 2024Article
- Females alter their mate preferences depending on hybridization risk.Biology letters · 2022Article
- Estimation of the strength of mate preference from mated pairs observed in the wild.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022Article
- Hearing, touching, and multisensory integration during mate choice.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2022Review
- Juvenile Experience with Male Cues Triggers Cryptic Choice Mechanisms in Adult Female Redback Spiders.Insects · 2021Article
- Does the choosiness of female crickets change as they age?The Journal of experimental biology · 2021Article
- The relationship between a combinatorial processing rule and a continuous mate preference function in an insect.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Structural manipulations of a shelter resource reveal underlying preference functions in a shell-dwelling cichlid fish.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Extreme Duty Cycles in the Acoustic Signals of Tiger Moths: Sexual and Natural Selection Operating in Parallel.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- On the architecture of mate choice decisions: preference functions and choosiness are distinct traits.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mate choice is an important cause of sexual selection; it can drive the evolution of extravagant ornaments and displays, and promote speciation through the reproductive isolation generated by rapid divergence of sexual traits. Understanding mate choice requires knowledge of the traits involved in generating mate-choice decisions, and how those traits may interact with each other. It has been proposed that mate-choice decisions are the outcome of two components that vary independently: the preference function (the ranking of the attractiveness of prospective mates) and choosiness (the effort invested in mate assessment). Here we test this hypothesis by examining individual variation in female preference functions and choosiness in green treefrogs ( Hyla cinerea). We show that measures describing preference functions and choosiness are not correlated. We also show that both components are influenced differently by variation in female body size, and that preference function shape (closed and preferring intermediate values or open-ended and preferring extremes) has a strong influence on this relationship: function traits are positively correlated with body size only for individuals with closed functions, while choosiness is positively correlated with body size for individuals with open functions, but negatively for those with closed functions.
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.