Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36626380›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2023

Sexual selection in females and the evolution of polyandry.

Salomé Fromonteil, Lucas Marie-Orleach, Lennart Winkler, Tim Janicke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
44.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Diagnosing confounded Bateman gradients.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The logic of conventional and reversed Bateman gradients.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Salomé FromonteilCEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.
Lucas Marie-OrleachNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Lennart WinklerApplied Zoology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Tim JanickeCEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1453-6813
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRTechnische Universität Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last decades, the field of sexual selection underwent a paradigm shift from sexual-stereotype thinking of "eager" males and "coy" females towards a more nuanced perspective acknowledging that not only males but also females can benefit from multiple mating and compete for mating partners. Yet, sexual selection in females is still considered a peculiarity, and the evolution of polyandry is often viewed to result from a higher mating interest of males. Here, we present meta-analytic evidence from 77 species across a broad range of animal taxa to demonstrate that female reproductive success is overall positively correlated with mating success, suggesting that females typically benefit from multiple mating. Importantly, we found that these fitness gains likely promote the evolution of polyandry. Our findings offer support for the idea that sexual selection is widespread in females and to play a key role for the evolution of animal mating systems. Thereby, our results extend our understanding of the evolutionary consequences of sexual reproduction and contribute to a more balanced view of how sexual selection operates in males and females.

Indexed as

Sexual Behavior, AnimalSexual SelectionAnimalsBiological EvolutionFemaleMaleReproduction

Identifiers

PMID36626380
PMCPMC9831318
OpenAlexW4315436548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.