5.4 C
New York
Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Sexual choice in females and the evolution of polyandry


Sexual choice principle has change into one of the crucial persuasive but in addition most controversial fields in evolutionary biology. Regardless of a basic harmony that sexual choice constitutes a potent evolutionary power shaping an incredible range of phenotypes in animals and vegetation [1], there’s a persevering with debate concerning the extent to which it operates in another way in women and men [24]. When Darwin set the foundations of the sphere, he clearly thought of males to be the first goal of sexual choice, which we right here contemplate as choice arising from competitors for mating companions and/or their gametes [5]. Particularly, Darwin argued that “with virtually all animals, wherein the sexes are separate, there’s a consistently recurrent battle between the males for the possession of the females” and that “the feminine […], with the rarest exception, is much less keen than the male […,] she is coy and will typically be seen endeavouring for a very long time to flee from the male” [5]. A long time later, in a landmark contribution, Bateman speculated concerning the evolutionary causes of intercourse roles and cemented Darwin’s sexual stereotypes by means of a sequence of arguments that later grew to become referred to as Bateman’s rules [6]. Most significantly, he argued that the primordial intercourse distinction in gamete measurement (i.e., small sperm versus large and nutrient-rich eggs) imposes sex-specific choice on mate acquisition, which finally causes an “undiscriminating eagerness” in males and a “discriminating passivity” in females [6]. Thus, each founders of the sphere had the imaginative and prescient that sexual choice operates sometimes stronger on males in comparison with females—an assertion that has ceaselessly been argued to have triggered a very male-centred focus in analysis agendas of subsequent generations of evolutionary biologists [7].

Till at the moment, sexual choice analysis on males predominates the sphere. The truth is, research testing for male–male competitors and feminine selection outnumber these with a concentrate on feminine–feminine competitors and male selection by magnitudes (Fig A in S1 Textual content). Nonetheless, meta-analytic proof means that Darwinian intercourse roles certainly prevail the animal tree of life [3]. This prompts the query to what extent the imbalance in analysis efforts displays the aftermath of an alleged false impression by the pioneers [79] or whether or not the huge underrepresentation of research on sexual choice in females has organic grounds as a result of it corresponds to its rarity in nature [10,11].

Remarkably, neither Darwin nor Bateman dominated out that sexual choice operates in females. For instance, Darwin argued that “In numerous lessons of animals a couple of distinctive instances happen, wherein the feminine as a substitute of the male has acquired well-pronounced secondary sexual characters, akin to brighter colors, higher measurement, energy, or pugnacity” [5]. Additional, he acknowledged “With birds […] there has typically been an entire transposition of the atypical characters correct to every intercourse; the females having change into the extra keen in courtship, the males remaining comparatively passive, however apparently deciding on, as we could infer from the outcomes, the extra enticing females.” (p. 276). Thus, Darwin himself was the primary to state that sexual choice can happen in females—an necessary however typically ignored implication of Darwin’s pioneering work (however see [11]). But, solely within the late Nineteen Nineties, empiricists slowly started to build up proof that females additionally compete for mating companions [11,12]. The truth is, there may be now multifaceted help for feminine–feminine competitors and male selection at each pre- and postcopulatory episodes of sexual choice suggesting that sexual choice can act on females in an identical means because it does on males [1317]. Essentially the most outstanding and clearest help for sexual choice in females could be present in so-called sex-role reversed species wherein females profit comparatively extra from mating, and subsequently typically compete actively for males. For instance, in some species of pipefishes and seahorses, fertilisation takes place contained in the brood pouch of the male, which gives all parental care [18,19]. As a consequence, males change into a limiting useful resource for which females compete, finally resulting in choice for ornaments favoured by male pre- and even postcopulatory mate selection [20]. Different examples of sex-role reversal are tropical shorebirds of the household Jacanidae wherein females aggressively defend territories to monopolise a number of males [21]. Importantly nevertheless, sex-role reversal is just not a prerequisite for sexual choice to function in females, as it might signify simply an excessive on a spectrum of intercourse roles. Even in species with Darwinian intercourse roles wherein sexual choice promotes the evolution of male ornaments and indulgent courtship behaviours, females should still compete for entry to high-quality males, as demonstrated in male lekking fruit flies [22] and peafowls [23]. Consequently, sexual choice in females may really be an omnipresent phenomenon in animals however working much less intensely and extra subtly in comparison with males [12,24].

In mild of this growth, there has clearly been a paradigm shift away from the sexual stereotypes dominating the early period of sexual choice analysis in direction of a extra nuanced viewpoint acknowledging that females could be topic to sexual choice too. This progress was considerably fostered by the rise of molecular paternity analyses within the early Nineteen Nineties revealing that females of many putatively monogamous species are literally polyandrous [25]—additionally known as the “polyandry revolution” [26], which spurred the search for understanding the adaptive significance of a number of mating from a feminine perspective. But, the important thing query stays: Is polyandry primarily the consequence of a disproportionally increased eagerness to mate in males or are excessive ranges of a number of mating additionally pushed by a feminine curiosity [2730]. The convenience-polyandry speculation posits that females have interaction in a number of mating to not get hold of advantages however to restrict prices imposed by male harassment [27]. Particularly, comfort polyandry is anticipated to happen if the price of resistance to mate exceeds the web value of mating. Curiously, even when mating is related to prices for fecundity and survival, polyandry has been demonstrated to be an evolutionary secure technique if excessive mating charges scale back the chance of remaining unmated [30]. Furthermore, no matter any mating prices, polyandry has been argued to evolve as a genetic corollary to sexual choice on males [31]. This speculation assumes a powerful genetic correlation between female and male mating charges in order that choice for a excessive mating propensity in males displaces females from their decrease optimum mating price.

In stark distinction to the “convenience-polyandry” and “genetic-corollary” hypotheses, polyandry has typically been thought of to evolve as a operate of a feminine mating curiosity. Every time the advantages of a number of mating outweigh the prices, choice on females is anticipated to favour a polyandrous mating system [32]. These advantages embrace so-called “direct” advantages (i.e., assets supplied by males akin to nuptial presents, territory, or parental care), “oblique” or “genetic” advantages (i.e., if sure alleles or allele mixtures improve offspring health), and advantages obtained from diversifying the genetic variation inside a brood (i.e., genetic bet-hedging) [12]. There was an incredible effort in deciphering these potential advantages, and comparative research on bugs and birds recommend that females get hold of primarily direct advantages [29], whereas meta-analytic proof for oblique (“genetic”) advantages is combined [3336]. Most significantly, express assessments on whether or not the web good thing about a number of mating in females promotes the evolution of polyandry are just about missing. Ridley (1988) reviewed the literature on the advantages of mating in bugs and located that the overwhelming majority of research reporting a fecundity improve with mating price involved polyandrous species [37]. Curiously, Taylor and colleagues (2014) discovered that polyandry is widespread throughout a broad vary of animal taxa however reveals in depth intra- and interspecific variation [25]. They additional discovered proof for a weak correlation between the frequency of polyandry and multilocus heterozygosity (albeit not correcting for phylogenetic non-independence) suggesting that genetic advantages could contribute to the evolution of polyandry [25]. Nonetheless, compelling comparative proof for the evolution of polyandry in response to internet advantages of a number of mating is lacking.

Right here, we purpose at filling 2 main gaps in our understanding of sexual choice in females utilizing a meta-analytic strategy. First, we offer a quantitative evaluation of the potential for sexual choice to function in females throughout a broad vary of animal taxa. Second, we take a look at whether or not the web good thing about a number of mating, measured when it comes to the Bateman gradient, predicts the evolution of polyandry throughout the animal tree of life as anticipated by the “benefits-driven” speculation. For these functions, we compiled 120 printed estimates of the so-called Bateman gradient, which measures the health good thing about mating. This metric captures the selective benefit arising from intra-sexual competitors for mates, which is the core of Darwinian sexual choice [5,6]. Nonetheless, the Bateman gradient has plenty of limitations that should be taken under consideration for making affordable interpretations (see Field 1). Importantly, Bateman gradients measure choice on mating success that is a crucial however not the one prerequisite for sexual choice to happen. Notably, entry to mating companions additionally must be restricted for which the Bateman gradient is essentially silent (Field 1). Thus, we stress that the Bateman gradient is a proxy that quantifies the higher potential however not the precise energy of sexual choice.

Field 1. What Bateman gradients inform about sexual choice and what they don’t

In his landmark paper, Bateman aimed to unravel the final word motive for the intercourse distinction within the energy of sexual choice as postulated by Darwin [6]. Impressed by an experiment with fruit flies, he argued {that a} stronger correlation between the variety of mates and reproductive success noticed in males is the trigger of “intra-masculine” choice. 5 many years later, Arnold and Duvall [32] formalised this concept by making use of choice principle from quantitative genetics to offer a measure for the energy of sexual choice. They outlined the sexual choice gradientss) because the slope of an atypical least sq. regression of reproductive success (RS) on mating success (MS), which is

In honour of Bateman’s foundational work, βss is usually known as the Bateman gradient [38] and superior as a key metric to quantify the energy of Darwinian sexual choice. In essence, the Bateman gradient gives nothing else than an estimate of the health internet return (i.e., advantages minus prices) that may be obtained from growing mating success and subsequently measures the energy of choice on mate acquisition. This suggests that the Bateman gradient captures the selective benefit arising from intra-sexual competitors for mates, which is the kernel of Darwinian sexual choice. Consistent with Bateman’s unique assertion, a optimistic Bateman gradient is predicted to advertise competitors for mates, decide the mating system, and favour the evolution of traits that confer a better mating success akin to ornaments and armaments [32,39]. The Bateman gradient doesn’t present a direct measure of choice on a sexually chosen trait [40], however one necessary benefit is its eligibility to distinction the energy of sexual choice throughout contexts akin to comparability amongst sexes, environments, and species [3,10,41]. Nonetheless, for this objective, the Bateman gradient must be computed on relativised knowledge so that every particular person estimate of reproductive success and mating success is split by the imply worth of the given pattern [42]. One other important asset of the Bateman gradient is that it addresses a testable speculation (i.e., reproductive success is said to mating success), which makes it the one sexual choice metric that may function an impact measurement in meta-analyses.

Regardless of its capability to offer a common proxy for the energy of sexual choice, the Bateman gradient has plenty of limitations, which should be taken under consideration for affordable interpretation. One necessary conceptual downside of the Bateman gradient is that, at finest, it solely informs concerning the internet return for acquiring a (extra) mate, which is a crucial however not the only real prerequisite for intra-sexual competitors to come up. Particularly, for competitors to happen, mating companions additionally must be a restricted useful resource [43]. Provided that mate acquisition is tough (i.e., pricey), people compete for mates and sexual choice can function. Mate limitation can have many causes together with low densities and skewed operational intercourse ratios however all the time implies that some people can’t obtain an optimum mating success, which interprets into variance in mating success. Remarkably, already Bateman denoted the variance in mating success as a signal for “intra-masculine” choice, which later grew to become a proxy for the depth of precopulatory competitors (i.e., termed the “alternative for sexual choice;” IS) by offering an higher restrict for the energy of directional sexual choice (for a important evaluate see [40]). Importantly, the absence of variance in mating success implies an absence of competitors for entry to mating companions [42]. This corresponds to the very primary theorem of choice principle: choice requires not solely a health impact of a trait but in addition variance in that trait. For an evolutionary response, at the least some fraction of that variance must have a heritable foundation. With respect to Darwinian sexual choice, the trait of curiosity is mating success and the Bateman gradient informs about its health impact however not about its variance. Jones [42] mixed each parts of sexual choice in a single metric as

the place smax is termed the utmost standardised sexual choice differential or just the Jones’ index. This metric estimates the utmost energy of precopulatory sexual choice on a trait and has been demonstrated to outperform βSS and IS in a simulation research [

One other shortcoming of the Bateman gradient is its concentrate on premating sexual choice, which was the main focus of sexual choice envisioned by Darwin. But, postmating sexual choice when it comes to postcopulatory competitors and selection have been recognized as main parts of sexual choice [45]. This could be a important constraint for measuring sexual choice in males for which sperm competitors has been discovered to be intense in a broad array of species [46]. In contrast, egg competitors appears to be uncommon and restricted to exterior fertilizers [13], which makes the feminine Bateman gradient a much less incomplete proxy for the full energy of sexual choice in comparison with males.

Aside from these conceptual limitations of Bateman gradients, there are a selection of methodological features that should be taken under consideration when decoding Bateman gradients. At first, like most choice differentials, the overwhelming majority of Bateman gradients depend on correlational knowledge in order that they don’t enable inference of causality. Thus, a optimistic relationship between mating success and reproductive success could be cofounded with different unmeasured elements akin to physique measurement. Furthermore, the precise causal relationship could be inversed such that reproductive success impacts mating success because of a choice for mating with extra fecund companions [47]. This confounding could be problematic for feminine Bateman gradients given the ever-present proof that males could be picky with respect to the associate’s fecundity [17]. Second, the explanatory energy of the Bateman gradient depends upon how reproductive success and mating success are estimated. Particularly the measurement of precise mating success based mostly on behavioural observations could be very laborious and typically even unimaginable. Due to this fact, mating success is usually inferred from genetic parentage evaluation and outlined as the full variety of mates with whom a person produced offspring (i.e., genetic mating success). A meta-analysis proved that this strategy inflates the Bateman gradient of women and men when in comparison with estimates derived from behavioural measures of mating success (i.e., copulatory mating success) [48]. Quantifying mating success when it comes to the variety of genetic mother and father could not solely obscure a probably necessary part of postcopulatory sexual choice (as a result of unsuccessful copulations and a number of copulations with the identical associate stay undetected) but in addition results in an autocorrelation of mating success and reproductive success, particularly in species with low fecundity [49,50].

Lastly, one other notable limitation of the Bateman gradient is its assumption of a linear relationship between mating success and reproductive success, which could be an oversimplification, particularly in females. Particularly, in separate-sexed species, reproductive success of people with no mating success is essentially zero however will increase as quickly as one profitable mating is obtained. Nonetheless, after 1 mating, reproductive success could additional improve, stay fixed and even lower with additional matings (e.g., if mating entails value related to hurt or transmission of ailments). Consequently, the connection between reproductive success and mating success could change into nonlinear if health is optimised at intermediate mating charges, which has been demonstrated for females in lots of species [51]. For that reason, it’s typically informative to compute Bateman gradients with and with out people having zero mating success, with the latter quantifying the health return of a further mating [48].

Extra detailed reflections on the strengths and limitations of the Bateman gradient could be discovered elsewhere together with tips on tips on how to keep away from pitfalls in estimating Bateman gradients and tips on how to management for potential confounding elements [48,52,53].


We discovered proof for a excessive potential of sexual choice to function in females throughout the animal tree of life when it comes to a optimistic international impact measurement of the Bateman gradient (Fig 1A and Desk 1 and Desk A in S1 Textual content). Our phylogenetically impartial meta-analysis revealed a major phylogenetic sign (phylogenetic heritability H2 = 0.42; Desk 1), which can also be mirrored in variations amongst main taxonomic teams with impact sizes being highest in fish (Desk B in S1 Textual content). Furthermore, Bateman gradients confirmed substantial variability throughout research (Fig 2 and Desk 1). This variation was partly defined by variations in methodological approaches used to quantify the energy of sexual choice. Particularly, estimates of sexual choice critically trusted how mating success was measured (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content and Fig B in S1 Textual content): increased impact sizes had been noticed in research utilizing genetic parentage evaluation to evaluate mating success (i.e., genetic mating success) in comparison with estimates based mostly on behavioural observations (i.e., copulatory mating success). As well as, inclusion of people that didn’t mate led to bigger impact sizes in comparison with estimates excluding people with zero mating success (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content and Fig B in S1 Textual content). Nonetheless, we nonetheless noticed a sign for optimistic choice on mating success when working extra conservative analyses restricted to research counting on copulatory mating success or research excluding people that didn’t mate (Desk 1 and Desk A in S1 Textual content). Moreover, we didn’t detect a major distinction in feminine Bateman gradients between laboratory and discipline research (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content).


Fig 1. Meta-analytic proof for sexual choice in females and its relation to the mating system.

(A) World impact measurement of the Bateman gradient obtained from GLMMs with or with out accounting for phylogenetic non-independence (phylogenetic or non-phylogenetic, respectively). (B) Distinction in sexual choice in females between low-polyandry and high-polyandry species. Raincloud charts present posterior distributions, international impact measurement with 95% HPD intervals (diamonds and error bars) and uncooked impact sizes (stuffed circles) of feminine Bateman gradient. The code and knowledge wanted to generate this determine could be discovered at https://salomefromonteil.github.io/META_SexSelFem/ and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7303598. GLMM, basic linear mixed-effects mannequin; HPD, Highest Posterior Density.


Regardless that not one of the sampled species confirmed strict monogamy, they differed significantly within the stage of polyandry quantified because the proportion of females within the inhabitants with a couple of mating associate (imply ± SE = 0.66 ± 0.03; vary = 0.01–1.00). Remarkably, this interspecific variation within the mating system was associated to the Bateman gradient. Species that had been extra polyandrous confirmed steeper Bateman gradients, no matter whether or not polyandry was thought of as discrete classes of low- versus high-polyandry (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content and Fig 1B) or as a steady variable (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content).

We detected no signature for publication bias based mostly on multilevel meta-regression testing for a relationship between impact measurement and its customary error (GLMM: estimate ± SE, −0.135 ± 0.478, PMCMC = 0.778; Fig C in S1 Textual content). Lastly, we didn’t detect an impact of publication 12 months suggesting the absence of the so-called bandwagon impact [54] (Desk 2 and Desk C in S1 Textual content).


The sphere of sexual choice underwent a paradigm shift from stereotypic sex-role considering towards a much less biased perspective on how competitors for mating companions and their gametes imposes choice on each sexes. In settlement with the pioneering work by Darwin and Bateman, sexual choice has been discovered to behave extra strongly on males than on females. Nonetheless, does this intercourse distinction preclude sexual choice to be widespread in females? Furthermore, if sexual choice in females is frequent, does it contribute to the variety of mating methods? Right here, we offer meta-analytic proof suggesting that sexual choice is probably widespread in feminine animals and that the advantages of a number of mating in females—approximated by the Bateman gradients—clarify the variation in polyandry throughout the animal tree of life.

Our phylogenetically knowledgeable synthesis means that females—simply as males—sometimes profit from having a couple of mating associate. Due to this fact, our research gives quantitative proof that optimistic choice for mate acquisition could probably be widespread in females, which is anticipated to favour the evolution of sexual traits in females throughout a broad taxonomic vary, and will subsequently problem arguments that ornamentation in females evolves primarily as a by-product of sexual choice on males [55]. Nonetheless, a optimistic Bateman gradient in females, alone, could not suffice to advertise the evolution of feminine sexually chosen traits. Particularly in species wherein feminine Bateman gradients are optimistic however much less steep in comparison with males, feminine ornaments and armaments could not evolve as a result of males might not be a limiting useful resource given their even increased selective benefit of being polygamous. Therefore, the obvious underrepresentation of sexually chosen traits in females noticed throughout animals doesn’t essentially contradict the general good thing about a number of mating in females. Curiously, nevertheless, in all compiled major research feminine mating success diversified amongst people as a result of in any other case, the authors wouldn’t have been in a position to quantify the connection between reproductive success and mating success. This means that in all examined methods for which the Bateman gradient was discovered to vary from zero, at the least some females didn’t obtain their optimum mating success (assuming that females of a given species have a shared optimum). Admittedly, variance in mating success can have many causes together with variance in one other correlated trait, stochasticity, and/or might simply be an artefact as a result of experimental situations used to evaluate Bateman gradients (e.g., the period of time wherein females had been allowed to work together with males in laboratory research). But, a big fraction of the compiled printed work issues discipline research (i.e., 55 out of 84; 65.5%) of which many concentrate on open populations and span over a complete reproductive season and even lifetime. Consequently, the variance in feminine mating success noticed within the majority of major research is just not pushed by synthetic experimental situations however could as a substitute replicate to a point that males are a restricted useful resource for females. Nonetheless, the extent to which variance in feminine mating success is indicative of females being male-limited, or whether or not it outcomes from stochasticity or from variance in one other correlated trait, stays an fascinating query for future empirical work, particularly in species with nonzero Bateman gradients.

The opposite main discovering of our research is that species with a optimistic feminine Bateman gradient are typically extra polyandrous, which has lengthy been argued [32] however, to our information, has by no means been examined throughout species. Even when our comparative strategy doesn’t enable inference of causality, this end result means that optimistic choice on mating success in females interprets into increased mating charges as predicted by sexual choice principle [12,32]. Therefore, our outcomes help the speculation that the evolution of polyandry is facilitated when females profit from a number of mating, and thus, refute different hypotheses wherein the evolution of polyandry is assumed to be male-driven and evolves primarily to mitigate prices related to mating (“comfort polyandry” speculation; [27]) or due to a genetic corollary to sexual choice on males [31].

Our research depends on the premise that the Bateman gradient gives a significant quantitative proxy for the energy of sexual choice. Whereas there may be compelling theoretical and empirical help for this assertion, particularly within the context of interspecific comparisons [10,42,44,48], the Bateman gradient has plenty of limitations (Field 1). Presumably, essentially the most important shortcoming is that Bateman gradients, like most choice gradients, are sometimes inferred from descriptive approaches wherein the predictor variable (i.e., mating success) is just not manipulated experimentally. Thus, Bateman gradients don’t suggest causality as a result of a optimistic relationship between mating success and reproductive success in females can both point out an precise health good thing about mating or that fecundity impacts mating success (e.g., because of a male choice [47]). As one other limitation, the Bateman gradient solely captures the higher potential of precise phenotypic choice [48], which means that our research can’t present a trait-based perspective on feminine sexual choice. Extra particularly, Bateman gradients don’t quantify the prices related to the event of a phenotypic trait worth, which permits to realize a further mating [43]. Lastly, Bateman gradients might also underestimate the energy of sexual choice as a result of they focus solely on the variety of companions or copulations because the goal of choice. For instance, when sexual choice entails competitors for mate high quality quite than amount, which may be notably related for females [56], Bateman gradients are incomplete estimates of the energy of sexual choice.

Regardless of these limitations, our outcomes are strong with respect to totally different methodological approaches used to quantify the Bateman gradient. In our research, even after the exclusion of research designs which might be liable to overestimate the connection between mating and reproductive success, we detected an total optimistic Bateman gradient. Particularly, research inferring mating success from parentage (i.e., genetic mating success) have been proven to overestimate the Bateman gradient [48,57]. Nonetheless, once we prohibit our evaluation to research wherein mating success was measured on behavioural observations (i.e., copulatory mating success), we nonetheless discovered a optimistic international impact measurement. As well as, the probability to detect a number of sires will increase with feminine fecundity, which can result in an autocorrelation between feminine mating success and feminine reproductive success in research counting on genetic mating success [48]. This spurious relationship didn’t appear to have fashioned the premise of our noticed results, since we didn’t detect a correlation between estimates of Bateman gradients and feminine fecundity in research utilizing genetic mating success. Furthermore, our findings recommend that the optimistic relationship between mating success and reproductive success in females is just not solely pushed by the advantage of having at the least a single mating but in addition by the advantage of having a further mating. Therefore, regardless of numerous strains of proof that mating can incur prices for females [58,59], our knowledge recommend that reproductive success could typically be maximised at excessive mating charges.

Collectively, our research contributes to a extra nuanced view on sexual choice and intercourse variations usually. Though Darwinian intercourse roles appear to predominate the animal tree of life within the sense that sexual choice is often stronger on males in comparison with females [3], our meta-analysis corroborates the usually alleged however hitherto untested assumption that sexual choice could be an necessary evolutionary power in females shaping animal mating methods. Finally, our findings immediate the query of whether or not females of species with optimistic Bateman gradients solely settle for extra mating makes an attempt by males and subsequently change into extra polyandrous or whether or not they actively attempt and compete for extra mating alternatives. Given the talked about limitations of Bateman gradients, our research can solely reveal a excessive potential for sexual choice to be widespread in females however could mark a place to begin for additional empirical analysis exploring precise feminine–feminine competitors for mating companions and/or gametes in species characterised by optimistic feminine Bateman gradients and Darwinian intercourse roles. Furthermore, optimistic Bateman gradients in females could weaken choice on sexual traits in males as a result of females could change into much less picky, which can additionally loosen up sexual battle over mating. But, our present information on how sexual choice in a single intercourse impacts sexual choice within the different may be very restricted. Detailed information of such interactions is clearly pivotal to higher perceive intra- and interspecific variation within the energy of sexual choice and represents a promising avenue for future theoretical and empirical work on the evolution of mating methods.

Supplies and strategies

Systematic literature search

We extracted feminine Bateman gradients from a earlier meta-analysis [3] and expanded this database by including research which have since been printed. Particularly, we ran a scientific literature search utilizing the ISI Net of Information (ISI Net of Science Core Assortment database; Clarivate Analytics) with the “subject” search phrases outlined as (“Bateman*” OR “opportunit* for choice” OR “opportunit* for sexual choice” OR “choice gradient*” OR (“mating success” AND “feminine*”)) on the thirty first of March 2022. On this search, the timespan was outlined as “2015 –at the moment” as a result of the literature search of the earlier research had been carried out on the twenty fifth of April 2015. As well as, we additionally screened all research printed after 2015 that cited Bateman’s unique paper. Our sole inclusion criterion was that the research should report knowledge permitting to evaluate the connection between mating success and reproductive success for females. The search yielded 1,974 information of which 30 research had been thought of eligible, offering a complete of 39 extra estimates of feminine Bateman gradients. As well as, we included 4 estimates from an unpublished experimental research on the bean weevil Acanthoscelides obtectus (S. Fromonteil and colleagues, unpublished knowledge) and 4 estimates obtained from a research on the crimson flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (L. Winkler and colleagues, unpublished knowledge). Combining these estimates with those obtained from the earlier meta-analysis added as much as a last dataset of 84 research reporting 120 feminine Bateman gradients from 77 species (Fig 3 and S2 Textual content).


Fig 3. Most popular Reporting Gadgets for Systematic Critiques and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Diagram.

Circulation chart maps the variety of information recognized through the totally different phases of the systematic literature search.


Moderator variables

Aside from a worldwide take a look at of sexual choice in females (inferred from a optimistic Bateman gradient), we geared toward explaining among-study variation in impact sizes from each a methodological and an evolutionary perspective. First, we evaluated if the tactic to quantify mating success influenced Bateman gradients. Particularly for females, the measurement of mating success when it comes to the variety of genetic companions (i.e., genetic mating success) has been demonstrated repeatedly to overestimate the Bateman gradient when in comparison with estimates obtained from behavioural observations (i.e., copulatory mating success) [48]. Quantifying mating success when it comes to the variety of genetic companions could not solely obscure a probably necessary part of postcopulatory sexual choice (as a result of unsuccessful copulations and a number of copulations with the identical associate stay undetected) but in addition results in an autocorrelation of mating success and reproductive success, notably in species with low fecundity [50]. For these causes, we examined the impact of the mating success technique by contrasting estimates of Bateman gradients based mostly on genetic (ok = 77) versus copulatory mating success (ok = 43). Research utilizing copulatory mating success relied on behavioural observations of the particular variety of copulatory companions (ok = 28) or the full variety of copulations (ok = 15). Second, we explored the impression of getting unmated people included within the measurement of the Bateman gradient. Estimates together with this zero-mating success class present a mixed estimate for the advantage of mating as soon as and the advantage of having a further mating associate (or copulation), whereas Bateman gradients excluding zero-mating success knowledge seize solely the latter. Within the context of sexual choice, we’re primarily fascinated with the advantage of having a further mating associate (or copulation) quite than the advantage of mating itself, because the latter is crucial for replica in outcrossing species. Thus, we in contrast Bateman gradients that embrace unmated people (ok = 70) with these excluding this zero-mating success class (ok = 79). Third, to additional account for methodological variations between research, we examined for an impact of the research kind on Bateman gradients by evaluating discipline research (ok = 68) with laboratory research (ok = 52).

Fourth, we examined whether or not the Bateman gradient was associated to mating system. We predicted {that a} health good thing about reaching excessive mating success selects for elevated polyandry, which means that species with a stronger feminine Bateman gradient are anticipated to be extra polyandrous [32]. We labeled the mating system of every sampled species based mostly on estimates of polyandry, which we outlined because the proportion of reproducing females which have greater than 1 mating associate. For almost all of species (N = 66; 85.7%), we estimated the proportion of multiply mated females utilizing knowledge supplied within the major research (Desk D in S1 Textual content). For a lot of the remaining species, we extracted estimates of polyandry from secondary literature, aside from 3 species for which we might solely discover verbal classifications of the mating system (see Desk D in S1 Textual content for references). We then used these estimates to outline the mating system as both low-polyandry or high-polyandry, relying on whether or not its worth was decrease or increased than 0.5, respectively, as a result of this worth has been discovered to be the common stage of polyandry in wild populations [25]. In complete, our dataset encompassed 16 high-polyandry and 61 low-polyandry species, for which we obtained 32 and 88 impact sizes, respectively. Sensitivity analyses revealed that different thresholds of polyandry (i.e., 0.4 or 0.6) didn’t result in qualitative adjustments of outcomes. We observe that our classification of the mating system stays an oversimplification of a clearly extra gradual spectrum of pure mating methods. Sadly, an alternate mannequin wherein we used the precise estimate of polyandry as a steady predictor variable confirmed important heteroscedasticity (studentised Breusch–Pagan take a look at: χ2 = 7.775, df = 1, P = 0.005). Due to this fact, we favor to base our conclusions on the mannequin together with mating system as a binary issue, however for completeness, we additionally report the result of the choice mannequin.

Phylogenetic affinities

We reconstructed the phylogeny of all sampled species from printed knowledge to be able to account for phylogenetic non-independence (Fig D in S1 Textual content). Particularly, we extracted divergence occasions from the TimeTree database (http://www.timetree.org/; [60]) and reworked the gap matrix into the NEWICK format utilizing the unweighted pair group technique with arithmetic imply (UPGMA) algorithm applied in MEGA (https://www.megasoftware.internet/; [61]). In complete, our evaluation included 77 species with a broad distribution throughout the animal tree of life, with an overrepresentation of arthropods (NSpecies = 20), birds (NSpecies = 13), fishes (NSpecies = 15), and mammals (NSpecies = 8) (Fig D in S1 Textual content).

Statistical evaluation

The Bateman gradient is outlined because the slope of a linear regression of reproductive success on mating success [6] and gives a strong metric of the energy of sexual choice for interspecific comparisons when computed on relativised knowledge (i.e., accounting for variations in imply mating and reproductive success) [42]. Nonetheless, solely 61.7% of the extracted Bateman gradients had been computed on relativised knowledge. Due to this fact, we transformed all obtained slopes into Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and computed their sampling variances utilizing formulation reported elsewhere [62]. We observe that utilizing r as an impact measurement as a substitute of a slope quantifies the energy of the connection between mating success and reproductive success, which relies upon not solely on the slope (i.e., the health return of the mating) but in addition on the goodness of match (i.e., the usual error of the slope). Nonetheless, evaluation of the subset of knowledge for which we might extract standardised Bateman gradients revealed that r is a powerful predictor of the particular Bateman gradient (Linear Regression: estimate ± SE = 1.19 ± 0.06; F1,72 = 375.88; P < 0.001, R2 = 0.84; Fig E in S1 Textual content), suggesting that our impact measurement is a dependable estimate for the advantage of mating.

Regardless that the Bateman gradient is a well-established metric for interspecific comparisons of the energy of sexual choice, it has numerous limitations (see Field 1 for a important account) and different metrics have been proposed to quantify sexual choice. Most and foremost, the utmost standardised sexual choice differential s’max (i.e., the product of the standardised Bateman gradient and the sq. root of the variance in relativised mating success Is; [42]) has been discovered to outperform the Bateman gradient, particularly when measuring sexual choice in females [44]. On condition that solely a fraction of major research reported Bateman gradients on relativized knowledge (see above), we couldn’t use s’max as goal response variable. Nonetheless, an evaluation restricted to major research reporting each standardised Bateman gradients and estimates of Is (N = 73) means that our impact measurement r is an effective predictor of s’max (Linear Regression: estimate ± SE = 1.00 ± 0.09; F1,71 = 116.3; P < 0.001, R2 = 0.62; Fig E in S1 Textual content). Lastly, research wherein mating success is inferred from genetic parentage have been argued to lead to spurious Bateman gradients primarily because of an autocorrelation between predictor and response variable, which is anticipated to be particularly problematic for species with an total low feminine fecundity [57]. If this imposes a significant bias in our knowledge, we’d predict that Bateman gradients improve with reducing feminine fecundity. Nonetheless, we didn’t discover proof for a major detrimental relationship between feminine fecundity and impact sizes of Bateman gradients estimated from genetic parentage (Linear Regression: estimate ± SE = −0.05 ± 0.06; F1,77 = 0.773; P = 0.382, R2 = 0.01), which means that optimistic Bateman gradients noticed in these research usually are not solely pushed by the talked about autocorrelation.

We ran basic linear mixed-effects fashions (GLMMs) to offer a worldwide take a look at for sexual choice in females and to discover determinants of the inter-study variation. First, we quantified international impact sizes by working GLMMs with r outlined because the response variable weighted by the inverse of its sampling variance and included research identifier and statement identifier as a random time period. This was completed each with out (i.e., “non-phylogenetic” GLMMs) and with including the phylogenetic correlation matrix as a further random time period (“phylogenetic” GLMMs). Secondly, we ran phylogenetic GLMMs wherein we outlined mating success technique (copulatory versus genetic), mating success vary (with versus with out zero-mating success class), research kind (discipline versus laboratory research), or mating system as a hard and fast issue to clarify inter-study variation in r. As a way to complement our evaluation of the mating system, we additionally ran a phylogenetic GLMM together with estimates of the particular stage of polyandry (i.e., the proportion of multiply mated females) as a steady predictor variable. All GLMMs had been run with the MCMCglmm operate of the MCMCglmm R bundle model 2.29 [63], utilizing uninformative priors (V = 1, nu = 0.002) and an efficient pattern measurement of 10,000 (variety of iterations = 4,400,000, burn-in = 400,000, thinning interval = 400). All fashions had been additionally run with different priors, which revealed qualitatively equivalent outcomes. Furthermore, we ran all fashions a number of occasions to confirm convergence and checked for autocorrelation within the chains. For completeness, we additionally ran all GLMMs utilizing the restricted most probability (REML) strategy utilizing the metafor R bundle model 2.4–0 [64]. These complementary analyses supplied qualitatively comparable outcomes and are reported within the Supporting data (Tables A and C in S1 Textual content).

We estimated heterogeneity I2 from the intercept-only mannequin because the proportion of variance in impact measurement that may be attributed to the totally different ranges of random results [65]. Specifically, we decomposed complete heterogeneity into the proportional phylogenetic variance (I2Phylogeny), between-study variance (I2Examine), and study-specific variance (observation-level random impact; I2Remark) [66]. Be aware that I2Phylogeny can also be termed phylogenetic heritability H2 and is equal to Pagel’s λ [67]. For fashions together with predictor variables, we computed the proportion of variance defined by these mounted elements (“marginal R2”) [68].

We used multilevel meta-regression to discover the potential for publication bias [69]. We first reworked our impact measurement r into Fisher’s z statistics and computed its variance utilizing formulation reported elsewhere [70]. This was completed as a result of the sampling variance of z solely depends upon the pattern measurement however not on the impact measurement itself, which isn’t the case for Pearson’s correlation coefficient. We then examined whether or not the impact measurement depends upon its customary error, which can recommend that small research solely get printed if impact sizes are giant sufficient to offer statistically important help for the examined speculation. Particularly, we ran a GLMM with z outlined as response variable, its customary error as mounted impact and research identifier, statement identifier and the phylogenetic correlation matrix as random phrases. Furthermore, we examined whether or not the 12 months of publication influences impact sizes, which has been argued to be suggestive of different types of biases [54]. For instance, the so-called bandwagon impact means that supportive outcomes get simpler printed in a newly rising discipline however over time scepticism concerning the theoretical foundations could come up and initially non-intuitive findings could discover a extra receptive viewers. If true for the sphere of sexual choice, we could anticipate a rise of impact sizes for feminine Bateman gradients with the rising consciousness locally that sexual choice doesn’t solely function in males.

Some readers may wonder if so-called sex-role reversed species are overrepresented in our dataset as a result of species wherein females are recognized to compete for males have repeatedly been studied to offer a proof of idea of Bateman’s rules. Furthermore, the inclusion of human research in our meta-analysis may be problematic for at the least 2 causes. First, mating success in human research is usually estimated when it comes to variety of pair bonds or marriages, which may be very totally different from the precise variety of sexual companions. Second, the estimated stage of polyandry in people is the bottom amongst all species in our evaluation (outlier evaluation: χ2 = 8.367, P = 0.004), which can bias the examined relationship between the feminine Bateman gradient and the extent of polyandry. For these causes, we ran a further sequence of analyses excluding sex-role reversed species or estimates obtained from human research. These analyses recommend that every one outcomes obtained from the evaluation of the whole dataset stay strong after excluding sex-role reversed species (Tables E and F in S1 Textual content) or human research (Tables G and H in S1 Textual content).

All statistical analyses had been carried out in R model 4.0.3 [71] and all knowledge along with R scripts used to carry out the introduced analyses have been made out there on-line at Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7303598) and GitHub (https://salomefromonteil.github.io/META_SexSelFem/).


  1. 1.
    Andersson M. Sexual Choice. Krebs JR, Clutton-Brock T, editors. Princeton: Princeton College Press; 1994. 624 p.
  2. 2.
    Roughgarden J, Oishi M, Akcay E. Reproductive social conduct: Cooperative video games to switch sexual choice. Science. 2006;311(5763):965–9. WOS:000235456900035. pmid:16484485
  3. 3.
    Janicke T, Häderer IK, Lajeunesse MJ, Anthes N. Darwinian intercourse roles confirmed throughout the animal kingdom. Sci Adv. 2016;2:e1500983. pmid:26933680
  4. 4.
    Tang-Martinez Z. Rethinking Bateman’s rules: difficult persistent myths of sexually reluctant females and promiscuous males. J Intercourse Res. 2016;53(4–5):532–59. WOS:000379618700008. pmid:27074147
  5. 5.
    Darwin CR. The Descent of Man, and Choice in Relation to Intercourse. London: John Murray; 1871.
  6. 6.
    Bateman AJ. Intra-sexual choice in Drosophila. Heredity. 1948;2:349–368. pmid:18103134
  7. 7.
    Rosenthal GG, Ryan MJ. Sexual choice and the ascent of girls: Mate selection analysis since Darwin. Science. 2022;375(6578):281–+. WOS:000745036100024. pmid:35050648
  8. 8.
    Ah-King M. Feminine sexual choice in mild of the Darwin-Bateman paradigm. Behav Ecol. 2011;22(6):1142–3. WOS:000296295000004.
  9. 9.
    Tang-Martinez Z, Ryder TB. The issue with paradigms: Bateman’s worldview as a case research. Integr Comp Biol. 2005;45(5):821–30. WOS:000234240100017. pmid:21676833
  10. 10.
    Parker GA, Birkhead TR. Polyandry: the historical past of a revolution. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2013;368(1613):13. WOS:000313747100013. pmid:23339245
  11. 11.
    Fritzsche Okay, Henshaw JM, Johnson BD, Jones AG. The a hundred and fiftieth anniversary of The Descent of Man: Darwin and the impression of sex-role reversal on sexual choice analysis. Biol J Linn Soc. 2021;134:525–540.
  12. 12.
    Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW. Polyandry as a mediator of sexual choice earlier than and after mating. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2013;368(1613):16. WOS:000313747100002. pmid:23339234
  13. 13.
    Hare RM, Simmons LW. Sexual choice and its evolutionary penalties in feminine animals. Biol Rev. 2019;94(3):929–56. WOS:000467422400009. pmid:30484943
  14. 14.
    Clutton-Brock T. Sexual choice in women and men. Science. 2007;318(5858):1882–5. ISI:000251786600047. pmid:18096798
  15. 15.
    Clutton-Brock T. Sexual choice in females. Anim Behav. 2009;77(1):3–11. ISI:000261756700001.
  16. 16.
    Edward DA, Chapman T. The evolution and significance of male mate selection. Traits Ecol Evol. 2011;26(12):647–54. WOS:000297777500011. pmid:21890230
  17. 17.
    Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate selection in bugs: a synthesis of concepts and proof. Biol Rev. 2001;76(3):305–39. WOS:000171032000002. pmid:11569787
  18. 18.
    Rosenqvist G, Berglund A. Sexual indicators and mating patterns in Syngnathidae. J Fish Biol. 2011;78(6):1647–1661. pmid:21651521
  19. 19.
    Vincent A, Ahnesjö I, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. Pipefishes and seahorses: are all of them intercourse position reversed? Traits Ecol Evol. 1992;7(7):237–241. pmid:21236017
  20. 20.
    Cunha M, Berglund A, Mendes S, Monteiro N. The ‘Girl in Purple’impact: pipefish males curb pregnancies on the sight of a pretty feminine. Proc R Soc B. 2018;285(1885):20181335. pmid:30135166
  21. 21.
    Lipshutz SE. Divergent aggressive phenotypes between females of two sex-role-reversed species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2017;71(7):10. WOS:000405009800008.
  22. 22.
    Papadopoulos NT, Carey JR, Liedo P, Muller HG, Senturk D. Virgin females compete for mates within the male lekking species Ceratitis capitata. Physiol Entomol. 2009;34(3):238–45. WOS:000269058600006.
  23. 23.
    Petrie M, Corridor M, Halliday T, Budgey H, Pierpoint C. A number of mating in a lekking hen: why do peahens mate with than one male and with the identical male greater than as soon as? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1992;31(5):349–58. WOS:A1992JW66800006.
  24. 24.
    Berglund A. Why are sexually chosen weapons virtually absent in females? Curr Zool. 2013;59(4):564–8. WOS:000323001900011.
  25. 25.
    Taylor ML, Value TAR, Wedell N. Polyandry in nature: a worldwide evaluation. Traits Ecol Evol. 2014;29(7):376–83. WOS:000338412600003. pmid:24831458
  26. 26.
    Pizzari T, Wedell N. The polyandry revolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013;368(1613):20120041. pmid:23339233.
  27. 27.
    Boulton RA, Zuk M, Shuker DM. An inconvenient fact: the unconsidered advantages of comfort polyandry. Traits Ecol Evol. 2018;33(12):904–915. pmid:30376988
  28. 28.
    Jennions MD, Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A evaluate of the genetic advantages. Biol Rev. 2000;75(1):21–64. ISI:000086077500002. pmid:10740892
  29. 29.
    Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: a number of mating and feminine health in bugs. Anim Behav. 2000;60:145–64. ISI:000089468100001. pmid:10973716
  30. 30.
    Kokko H, Mappes J. A number of mating by females is a pure final result of a null mannequin of mate encounters. Entomol Exp Appl. 2013;146(1):26–37. WOS:000312222600004.
  31. 31.
    Halliday T, Arnold SJ. A number of mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav. 1987;35:939–41. WOS:A1987H515100039.
  32. 32.
    Arnold SJ, Duvall D. Animal mating methods—a synthesis based mostly on choice principle. Am Nat. 1994;143(2):317–48. ISI:A1994MX57600006.
  33. 33.
    Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD. Estimating genetic advantages of polyandry from experimental research: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev. 2012;87(1):1–33. WOS:000298732300001. pmid:21545390
  34. 34.
    Simmons LW. The evolution of polyandry: Sperm competitors, sperm choice, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:125–46. ISI:000234684900006.
  35. 35.
    Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M. The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: The energy of direct and oblique choice on extrapair copulation conduct in females. Am Nat. 2005;165(5):S26–S37. WOS:000228094600004. pmid:15795859
  36. 36.
    Akcay E, Roughgarden J. Additional-pair paternity in birds: evaluate of the genetic advantages. Evol Ecol Res. 2007;9(5):855–68. WOS:000248192000009.
  37. 37.
    Ridley M. Mating frequency and fecundity in bugs. Biol Rev. 1988;63(4):509–49. WOS:A1988Q716600002.
  38. 38.
    Andersson M, Iwasa Y. Sexual choice. Traits Ecol Evol. 1996;11(2):53–58. pmid:21237761
  39. 39.
    Arnold SJ. Bateman rules and the measurement of sexual choice in vegetation and animals. Am Nat. 1994;144:S126–S49. ISI:A1994PA82600007.
  40. 40.
    Klug H, Heuschele J, Jennions MD, Kokko H. The mismeasurement of sexual choice. J Evol Biol. 2010;23(3):447–62. ISI:000273949900001. pmid:20088870
  41. 41.
    Janicke T, Morrow EH. Operational intercourse ratio predicts the chance and route of sexual choice throughout animals. Ecol Lett. 2018;21(3):384–391. pmid:29341415
  42. 42.
    Jones AG. On the chance for sexual choice, the Bateman gradient and the utmost depth of sexual choice. Evolution. 2009;63(7):1673–84. ISI:000267368900001. pmid:19228185
  43. 43.
    Kokko H, Klug H, Jennions MD. Unifying cornerstones of sexual choice: operational intercourse ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for aggressive funding. Ecol Lett. 2012;15(11):1340–51. WOS:000309395800015. pmid:22925080
  44. 44.
    Henshaw JM, Kahn AT, Fritzsche Okay. A rigorous comparability of sexual choice indexes by way of simulations of numerous mating methods. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(3):E300–E8. WOS:000368458800009. pmid:26739567
  45. 45.
    Birkhead TR, Pizzari T. Postcopulatory sexual choice. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3(4):262–73. ISI:000174739800013. pmid:11967551
  46. 46.
    Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S. Sperm Biology. Oxford: Educational Press; 2009.
  47. 47.
    Ketterson ED, Parker PG, Raouf SA, Nolan V Jr, Ziegenfus C, Chandler CH. The relative impression of extra-pair fertilizations on variation in female and male reproductive success in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemaus). In: Parker PG, Burley NT, editors. Avian Reproductive Techniques: Feminine and Male Views. 491997. p. 81–101.
  48. 48.
    Anthes N, Häderer IK, Michiels NK, Janicke T. Measuring and decoding sexual choice metrics–analysis and tips. Strategies Ecol Evol. 2017;8(8):918–931.
  49. 49.
    Gerlach NM, McGlothlin JW, Parker PG, Ketterson ED. Reinterpreting Bateman gradients: a number of mating and choice in each sexes of a songbird species. Behav Ecol. 2012;23(5):1078–1088.
  50. 50.
    Marie-Orleach L, Janicke T, Vizoso DB, David P, Schärer L. Quantifying episodes of sexual choice: Insights from a clear worm with fluorescent sperm. Evolution. 2016;70:314–328. pmid:26787006
  51. 51.
    Sprenger D, Faber J, Michiels NK, Anthes N. Pure feminine mating price maximizes hatchling measurement in a marine invertebrate. J Anim Ecol. 2008;77(4):696–701. ISI:000256539800009. pmid:18298520
  52. 52.
    Henshaw JM, Jones AG. Bateman gradient. In: Vonk J, Shackelford T, editors. Encyclopedia of animal cognition and conduct: Springer Nature; 2019. p. 1–4.
  53. 53.
    Henshaw JM, Jennions MD, Kruuk LEB. The way to quantify (the response to) sexual choice on traits. Evolution. 2018;72(9):1904–17. WOS:000444946400013. pmid:30004126
  54. 54.
    Jennions MD, Moller AP. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal tendencies in publication in ecology and evolution. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2002;269(1486):43–8. WOS:000173473500007. pmid:11788035
  55. 55.
    Lande R. Fashions of speciation by sexual choice on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981;78(6):3721–5. WOS:A1981LW77700085. pmid:16593036
  56. 56.
    Rosvall KA. Intrasexual competitors in females: proof for sexual choice? Behav Ecol. 2011;22(6):1131–40. WOS:000296295000001. pmid:22479137
  57. 57.
    Cramer ERA, Kaiser SA, Webster MS, Ryder TB. Widespread discipline knowledge limitations can considerably bias sexual choice metrics. Am Nat. 2020;196(2):180–96. WOS:000548984500008. pmid:32673091
  58. 58.
    Arnqvist G, Rowe L. Sexual Battle. Krebs JR, Clutton-Brock T, editors. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton College Press; 2005. xii+330 p.
  59. 59.
    Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L. Sexual battle. Traits Ecol Evol. 2003;18(1):41–47.
  60. 60.
    Kumar S, Stecher G, Suleski M, Hedges SB. TimeTree: A Useful resource for Timelines, Timetrees, and Divergence Occasions. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(7):1812–9. WOS:000402754400023. pmid:28387841
  61. 61.
    Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura Okay. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics evaluation throughout computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35(6):1547–1549. pmid:29722887
  62. 62.
    Lajeunesse MJ, Rosenberg MS, Jennions MD. Recovering lacking or partial knowledge from research: a survey of conversions and imputations for meta-analysis. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen Okay, editors. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton College Press; 2013. p. 195–206.
  63. 63.
    Hadfield JD. MCMC strategies for multi-response generalized linear combined fashions: the MCMCglmm R bundle. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(2):1–22.
  64. 64.
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package deal. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. WOS:000281593200001.
  65. 65.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. WOS:000176016900005. pmid:12111919
  66. 66.
    Nakagawa S, Santos ESA. Methodological points and advances in organic meta-analysis. Evol Ecol. 2012;26(5):1253–74. WOS:000307552500010.
  67. 67.
    de Villemereuil P, Nakagawa S. Common quantitative genetic strategies for comparative biology. In: Garamszegi LZ, editor. Trendy phylogenetic comparative strategies and their software in evolutionary biology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2014. p. 552.
  68. 68.
    Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A basic and easy technique for acquiring R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects fashions. Strategies Ecol Evol. 2013;4(2):133–42. WOS:000314974800004.
  69. 69.
    Nakagawa S, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, Koricheva J, Noble DWA, Parker TH, et al. Strategies for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Strategies Ecol Evol. 2022;13(1):4–21. WOS:000716902300001.
  70. 70.
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Evaluation. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
  71. 71.
    R Core Workforce. A language and surroundings for statistical computing. 4.0.3 ed: R Basis for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessible from: http://www.R-project.org/. 2020.

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles