ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2020
Female-specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased.
Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of sexual selection on functional and molecular reproductive divergence during experimental evolution in seed beetles.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- A test of operational sex ratio theory across latitudes reveals temporal variation in sex-specific behavioural reaction norms.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
- Selection in males purges the mutation load on female fitness.Evolution letters · 2021Article
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
Abstract
Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males, a bias often ascribed to intense competition for access to mating partners. This sex bias could reverberate on many aspects of evolution, from speed of adaptation to genome evolution. It is unclear, however, whether stronger opportunity for selection in males is a pattern robust to sex-specific stress or resource limitation. We test this in the model species Callosobruchus maculatus by comparing female and male opportunity for selection (i) with and without limitation of quality oviposition sites, and (ii) under delayed age at oviposition. Decreasing the abundance of the resource key to females or increasing their reproductive age was challenging, as shown by a reduction in mean fitness, but opportunity for selection remained stronger in males across all treatments, and even more so when oviposition sites were limiting. This suggests that males remain the more variable sex independent of context, and that the opportunity for selection through males is indirectly affected by female-specific resource limitation.
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.