Describing mate choice in a biased world: Comments on Edward and Dougherty & Shuker

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 320-321

  Kokko, Hanna ^a   Jennions, Michael D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938681831     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arv005     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Barry KL, Kokko H. 2010. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim Behav. 80:163-169.
2. Dougherty LR, Shuker DM. 2015. The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol. 26:311-319.
3. Edward DA. 2015. The description of mate choice. Behav Ecol. 26:301-310
4. Gwynne DT, Rentz DFC. 1983. Beetles on the bottle: male buprestids mistake stubbies for females. J Entomol Soc Australia. 22:79-80.
5. Hutchinson JMC. 2005. Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biol Rev. 80:73-92.
6. Jennions MD, Lortie C, Rosenberg MS, Rothstein HR. 2013. Publication and related biases. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K, editors. Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. p. 207-236.
7. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC. 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution. 50:1382-1391.
8. Kokko H, Mappes J. 2013. Multiple mating by females is a natural outcome of a null model of mate encounters. Entomol Exp Appl. 146:26-37.
9. Wiley RH, Poston J. 1996. Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution. 50:1371-1381.w