ArticleEvolution letters2024
The correlation between anisogamy and sexual selection intensity-the broad theoretical predictions.
Article in Evolution letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological Sex Is Binary and Rooted in Anisogamy.Ecology letters · 2026Review
- Experimental Evolution Under Biased Sex Ratios: Phenotypic and Genomic Responses in the Bulb Mite, Rhizoglyphus robini.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Same-sex Sexual Behavior: Using Old Theory to Answer New Questions.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Review
- Diagnosing confounded Bateman gradients.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2025Article
- Anisogamy and the Darwin-Bateman paradigm.Evolution letters · 2024Article
- Anisogamy and sex roles: a commentary.Evolution letters · 2024Article
- The logic of conventional and reversed Bateman gradients.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Darwin and Bateman suggested that precopulatory sexual selection is more intense on males than females, and that this difference is due to anisogamy (i.e., dimorphism in gamete size and number). While a recent paper apparently presents empirical support for this hypothesis, another appears at first sight to present evidence against it. We argue that this is partly due to lack of transparent theoretical predictions, and discuss and analyze sexual selection theory in relation to anisogamy evolution. On one hand, we find that there exists relatively little theory that can directly address all the tested predictions; on the other, the picture painted by current theory indicates that both sets of empirical results broadly match predictions about the causal link between anisogamy and sexual selection, thus reconciling the two apparently opposing claims. We also discuss in a very broad, general sense how anisogamy is expected to affect sexual selection.
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.