Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317675›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Sexual selection and 'species recognition' revisited: serial processing and order-of-operations in mate choice.

David A Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Intraspecific variation in animal mating signals: a test of Mayr's conjecture.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David A GrayDepartment of Biology, California State University Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4439-561X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the modern synthesis, mating signals were thought of principally as species recognition traits, a view later challenged by a burgeoning interest in sexual selection-specifically mate choice. In the 1990s, these different signal functions were proposed to represent a single process driven by the shape of female preference functions across both intra- and interspecific signal space. However, the properties of reliable 'recognition' signals (stereotyped; low intraspecific variation) and informative 'quality' signals (condition dependent; high intraspecific variation) seem at odds, perhaps favouring different signal components for different functions. Surprisingly, the idea that different components of mating signals are evaluated in series, first to recognize generally compatible mates and then to select for quality, has never been explicitly tested. Here I evaluate patterns of (i) intraspecific signal variation, (ii) female preference function shape and (iii) phylogenetic signal for male cricket call components known to be processed in series. The results show that signal components processed first tend to have low variation, closed preference functions and low phylogenetic signal, whereas signal components processed later show the opposite, suggesting that mating signal evaluation follows an 'order-of-operations'. Applicability of this finding to diverse groups of organisms and sensory modalities is discussed.

Indexed as

Mating Preference, AnimalAnimalsFemaleMalePhenotypePhylogenyReproductionSexual Behavior, AnimalSexual SelectioncricketsGryllusphylogenetic signalpreference functions

Identifiers

PMID35317675
PMCPMC8941403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.