2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-018-2622-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel method to estimate the spatial scale of mate choice in the wild

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In any case, there are a few potential caveats in the present study that need to be addressed in order to dispel doubts about our results. First, the I PSI and similar indexes allow us to estimate assortative mating, and are frequently used as a proxy of mate choice, at least in laboratory conditions (reviewed in Gilbert Estévez et al 2018Estévez et al , 2020. Thus, the correction used here does not correct, a priori, towards either negative or positive values of assortative mating.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In any case, there are a few potential caveats in the present study that need to be addressed in order to dispel doubts about our results. First, the I PSI and similar indexes allow us to estimate assortative mating, and are frequently used as a proxy of mate choice, at least in laboratory conditions (reviewed in Gilbert Estévez et al 2018Estévez et al , 2020. Thus, the correction used here does not correct, a priori, towards either negative or positive values of assortative mating.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the correction used here does not correct, a priori, towards either negative or positive values of assortative mating. For example, the same correction was used to estimate the real scale at which mate choice occurs in two species of marine gastropods (Estévez et al 2018), one characterised by positive assortative mating (Echinolittorina malaccana) and the other by negative assortative mating (L. fabalis), highlighting that this method is suitable to estimate both types of assortative mating. Therefore, the correction that we applied in this study assures a more reliable estimate of assortative mating in natural populations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the estimation of assortative mating may not represent mate choice and may result in positive bias for these species. This kind of bias can only be corrected after changing the experimental design for sampling mating pairs (see Estévez et al 2018).…”
Section: Spatial and Temporal Effects On Sam Patternsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We defined potentially productive matings as matings with conspecific females and unproductive mating as matings with any other partners, with a caveat that matings with some heterospecific females could be productive. We assumed that a total effect of PMI could be due to a combination of several phenomena such as reproductive timing (differential mating activity of males), habitat-preference and adaptation, sexual selection and isolation, but not to differentially mating preferences or sexual selection per se, which require a different sampling design and use of other estimators 47 , 48 , 52 , 65 , 66 . Disentangling the effects of sexual selection and isolation can be very informative when applied to population studies, and their estimators have been developed (PSS and PSI 52 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disentangling the effects of sexual selection and isolation can be very informative when applied to population studies, and their estimators have been developed (PSS and PSI 52 ). When considering multiple species, however, sexual selection and isolation cannot be differentiated due to strong effects of e.g ., habitat-preference, on observed mating pattern, the so-called “scale of choice” problem 47 , 65 , 66 . Therefore, in our study we focused on the total effects of all PMI mechanisms, including non-homogeneous spatial distribution, reproductive timing, and mechanisms of mate choice.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%