Conspicuous males suffer higher predation risk: visual modelling and experimental evidence from lizards
By Devi M Stuart-Fox, A. Moussalli, N. J. Marshall, Ian P. F. Owens. 2003
286 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7e966995778f511b695b897b6c3c2ef6b31a0da
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Ecological Modeling
In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Citations in the corpus
- A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects (2006, background): “Poor performance in these species can therefore be viewed as a cost of sexual selection similar to increased predation rates suffered by males with conspicuous ornamentation (Andersson 1994; Stuart-Fox et al. 2003; see also Hunt et al. 2004b).”
- The evolution of mutual ornamentation (2007, background): “This is a fruitful area for future research, because sexual dimorphism are expected be a result of differential balances of selective pressures in males and females, rather than the absence of, for example, mate choice in males (Wallace 1889; Stuart-Fox et al. 2003; Langerhans et al. 2005).”
- Predation cost of conspicuous male coloration in collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris) : An experimental test using clay-covered model lizards (2006, background): “…different degrees of conspicuous coloration allows all variables other than color Ethology 112 (2006) 572–580 ª 2006 The Authors Journal compilation ª 2006 Blackwell Verlag, Berlin 573 manipulations to be held constant (e.g. Brodie 1993; Olsson 1993; Castilla et al. 1999; Stuart-Fox et al. 2003).”
- Color change and camouflage in juvenile shore crabs Carcinus maenas (2014, background): “…experimental work on background matching has lagged behind that of other camouflage types, although it is clear that the degree of resemblance to the background is a fundamental factor in the likelihood of detection (e.g., Pietrewicz and Kamil, 1977; Stuart-Fox et al., 2003; Vignieri et al., 2010).”