2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-020-02859-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mating with sexually attractive males provides female Gryllus firmus field crickets with direct but not indirect fitness benefits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although many workers continue to test predictions of the good-genes and related hypotheses (e.g., Sardell et al 2014;Montoya and Torres 2015;Howie et al 2019), the claim that indirect selection on preference is expected to be relatively weak in some general or theoretical sense continues to be made (e.g., Kuijper et al 2012;Ryan and Cummings 2013;Rosenthal 2017;Fitzpatrick and Servedio 2018;Svensson 2019;Kelly and Adam-Granger 2020). The relative importance of direct and indirect selection on preference is an empirical question that can only be answered by careful comparisons of somatic and genetic benefits of mate choices in species representing a wide range of mating systems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although many workers continue to test predictions of the good-genes and related hypotheses (e.g., Sardell et al 2014;Montoya and Torres 2015;Howie et al 2019), the claim that indirect selection on preference is expected to be relatively weak in some general or theoretical sense continues to be made (e.g., Kuijper et al 2012;Ryan and Cummings 2013;Rosenthal 2017;Fitzpatrick and Servedio 2018;Svensson 2019;Kelly and Adam-Granger 2020). The relative importance of direct and indirect selection on preference is an empirical question that can only be answered by careful comparisons of somatic and genetic benefits of mate choices in species representing a wide range of mating systems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This conclusion was reached in an influential theoretical paper by Kirkpatrick and Barton (1997), and was later arrived at by a somewhat different line of reasoning by Cameron et al (2003). It has since become widely accepted (e.g., Kokko et al 2006;Hettyey et al 2010;Kuijper et al 2012;Ryan and Cummings 2013;Kiyose et al 2015;Rosenthal 2017;Fitzpatrick and Servedio 2018;Suzaki et al 2018;Svensson 2019;Kelly and Adam-Granger 2020;Madjidian et al 2020). For example, in a review of sexual selection theory, Kuijper et al (2012) cite both Kirkpatrick and Barton (1997) and Cameron et al (2003) in support of the statement that "even slight costs can override indirect benefits of choosiness, leading to the theoretical expectation that sexual selection driven only by indirect benefits of choosiness is rare in nature."…”
Section: Impact Summarymentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other species, mating with more attractive partners can lead to direct effects for the partner, but not necessarily for the offspring. For example, in the field cricket, Gryllus firmus, mating with more attractive males led to a higher number of eggs laid by females but offspring did not show any fitness benefits (Kelly and Adam-Granger 2020). In A. rosae, parental clerodanoid exposure may affect other offspring traits, such as immunity (Bozov et al 2015), lifespan (Zanchi et al 2021), or traits exhibited in adulthood, e.g.…”
Section: Effects Of Parental Reproductive Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Female guppies often choose mates based upon the varied expression of male secondary sexual traits, with males possessing novel or rare colour patterns acquiring more mates and siring proportionally more offspring (Hughes et al, 2013). Further, females mated to preferred males have a greater number of pregnancies, faster conception (Parrott et al, 2019), and produce larger broods (Kelly & Adam-Granger, 2020). Given the high level of intrapopulation variation in female-male trait preference (Brooks & Endler, 2001;Hughes et al, 2013), no single male phenotype will be attractive to all females (Brooks & Endler, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%