Fisherian and "good genes" benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them

By Hanna Kokko. 2001

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/abf2ef4e3ae0177e937a19d47964cb6579628bcd

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. J. Husak
2. Hanna Kokko
3. S. Fox
4. I. Pen
5. Franz J. Weissing
6. G. Parker
7. R. Brooks
8. D. Irschick

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Franz J. Weissing
2. Bram Kuijper
3. I. Pen
4. Hanna Kokko
5. G. Parker
6. N. Wedell
7. Michael D. Jennions
8. R. Brooks

Citations in the corpus

• Do extra‐pair paternities provide genetic benefits for female blue tits Parus caeruleus? (2004, background): “Furthermore, extra-pair offspring should have enhanced growth, fecundity or survival compared to within-pair offspring (Kokko 2001).”
• A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects (2006, background): “All rights reserved. do so at the expense of functional or physiological capacities associated with survival (see Kokko 2001; Badyaev & Qvarnström 2002; Kokko et al. 2003).”
• TARGET ARTICLE: Evolutionary Foundations of Cultural Variation: Evoked Culture and Mate Preferences (2006, unknown): “Both Low’s (1990b) view of evoked culture as a function of women’s control of resources as well as Eagly and Wood’s (1999; Wood & Eagly, 2002) social structural ideas should expect robust associations between measures of gender inequality in access to resources and power to predict negatively the fi”
• Female polymorphisms, sexual conflict and limits to speciation processes in animals (2007, unknown): “…these highly questionable assumptions of asexual inheritance in game theory and adaptive dynamics (Waxman and Gavrilets 2005a, b) are unfortunately too often dismissed or played down by the enthusiastic supporters of these phenotypic modelling approaches (Kokko 2001, 2005 Kokko et al. 2002).”
• Sexual selection on locomotor performance (2008, background): “Nonetheless, females may benefit from mate choice by direct benefits via resources acquired from the chosen mate(s) or indirect benefits through offspring viability via ‘good genes’ or ‘sexy sons’ (Kirkpatrick and Ryan, 1991; Andersson, 1994; Kokko, 1998; Kokko et al., 2003; Kotiaho and Puurtinen, 2”
• A Guide to Sexual Selection Theory (2012, background): “Hence, although it is important to point out the similarities between indirect-benefit models of sexual selection (Kokko et al. 2002), the conceptual differences between the Fisher process and good-genes processes should not be neglected.”
• Unifying and Testing Models of Sexual Selection (2006, background): “…sexy sons, usually because Cdp > 0) and the effects of a correlation between male display and other fitness-related traits (Cdv > 0) are best seen as part of a continuum of outcomes of a unitary evolutionary process (Kokko et al. 2002, Pomiankowski & Iwasa 2001; compare Brooks 2000 and Kokko 2001).”
• Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview (2006, background): “The distinction between choice for good genes (where females gain increased fitness through beneficial genes in males) and what is termed ‘Fisherian’ sexual selection (where the sexual advertisement proceeds beyond the optimum set by natural selection) may be spurious, since the sons effect must be ”
• The evolution of mate choice and mating biases (2003, background): “…questions that remain are how these genes influence the life-history trade-off between survival and reproductive investment for sons and daughters (Kokko 1997, 2001; Hö glund & Sheldon 1998; Badyaev & Qvarnströ m 2002), whether they have similar or opposing effects on the fitnesses of sons and…”
• Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket (2004, background): “However, these two explanations are not mutually exclusive, unless there is a strong life history trade-off between attractiveness and general viability (Kokko 2001; Kokko et al. 2002).”
• Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems : crustaceans as model organisms (2007, background): “A second potential mechanism for the evolution of female preference in amphipods is indirect selection that occurs when mating preferences increase offspring fitness (Kokko 2001).”