Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult (2010, background): “…their budget preferentially to high-quality females or spend it more evenlyonabroader setof females (Itzkowitz&Haley1999;Engqvist& Sauer 2001, 2002; Reinhold et al. 2002; Preston et al. 2003; Dukas et al. 2006; Servedio & Lande 2006; Servedio 2007; Härdling et al. 2008; Candolin & Salesto 2009;…”
Sexual selection in females (2009, background): “…(Clutton-Brock et al. 1982, 1988; Owens & Thompson 1994) which are likely to strengthen selection on males to identify and prefer superior partners and, on females, for signals reflecting temporal and individual differences in fecundity (Berger 1989; Reinbold et al. 2002; Clutton-Brock 2007).”
The effects of male and female genotype on variance in male fertilization success in the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) (2003, background): “1997) essentially show either that females “handle” males and/or their gametes differentially, and are thus in line with a more active role of females in postcopulatory sexual selection, or that males generally invest differentially in different types of females (i.e., “cryptic male choice”; Reinhol”
The evolution of prudent choice (2005, background): “We also now have evidence that competitive strategies often are more subtly fine-tuned than previously realized (Craig, 2002; Reinhold et al., 2002; Wedell et al., 2002; Preston et al., 2003; Shine et al., 2004).”