ArticleScientific reports2020
On the evolution of sexual receptivity in female primates.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Male bonobo mating strategies target female fertile windows despite noisy ovulatory signals during sexual swelling.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Sexual Motivation Among U.S. Residents 57-85 Years of Age.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Sexual Motivation in Humans and Other Mammals: The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Processes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Fertility signalling games: should males obey the signal?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Balancing costs and benefits in primates: ecological and palaeoanthropological views.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Review
- Linking socio-sexual and vocal behaviour with faecal progesterone and oestrogen metabolite levels in Southern white rhinoceros females.Conservation physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been much interest in the evolutionary forces responsible for, and underlying the diversity in, female primate reproductive cycles. While there has been limited research on sexual receptivity in primates, this has been one recurring topic of interest. Some primate species are like humans, sexually receptive to mating throughout their entire estrus cycle, while other species are the opposite, receptive for mere hours out of their several-week cycles. Why is there such prominent variation in sexual receptivity length among primate species? Here we examine the evolutionary trade-offs associated with sexual receptivity length using mathematical modeling. We investigate how various factors, including having ovulation signs present versus concealed ovulation, female physiological costs, and group size, each influence the length of females' receptive periods. We find that both continuous receptivity and very short lengths of receptivity are able to evolve. Our model predicts that increasing the impacts of infanticide will increase the length of the female receptive period, emphasizing the possible importance of paternity confusion. Similar effects can also be achieved by increasing the non-genetic benefits provided by males. Overall, our work offers a theoretical framework for understanding the evolution and diversity of mating traits in female primates.
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.