A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Evolution of Mutual Mate Choice under Direct Benefits. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

In nature, the intensity of mate choice (i.e., choosiness) is highly variable within and between sexes. Despite growing empirical evidence of male and/or mutual mate choice, theoretical investigations of the joint evolution of female and male choosiness are few. In addition, previous approaches have often assumed an absence of trade-off between the direct benefits per mating and the lower mating rate that results from being choosy. Here we model the joint evolution of female and male choosiness when it is solely ruled by this fundamental trade-off. We show that this trade-off can generate a diversity of stable combinations of choosiness. Mutual mate choice can evolve only if both females and males exhibit long latency after mating. Furthermore, we show that an increase in choosiness in one sex does not necessarily prevent the evolution of mutual mate choice; the outcome depends on details shaping the trade-off: the life history, the decision rule for mate choice, and how the fecundity of a pair is shaped by the quality of both individuals. Last, we discuss the power of the sensitivity of the relative searching time (i.e., of the proportion of a lifetime spent searching for mates) as a predictor of the joint evolution of choosiness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/688658DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mate choice
24
mutual mate
16
joint evolution
12
evolution mutual
8
direct benefits
8
evolution female
8
female male
8
male choosiness
8
mate
6
choice
6

Similar Publications