Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ng, T.P.T.; Williams, G.A.; Davies, Mark; Stafford, R.; Rolán-Alvarez, E. (2016)
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: top_sciences

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: behavior and behavior mechanisms, reproductive and urinary physiology
Assortative mating in the wild is commonly estimated by correlating between traits in mating pairs (e.g. size of males and females). Unfortunately such an approach may suffer from considerable sampling bias when the distribution of different expressions of a trait in the wild is non-random; for example, when segregation of\ud different size classes of individuals occur in different microhabitats or areas.\ud \ud Consequently, any observed trait correlation in the wild can be an artifact of pooling heterogeneous samples of mating pairs from different microhabitats or areas rather than true non-random matings. This bias in estimating trait correlations due to sampling scale is termed the scale-of-choice effect (SCE). Here we use two intertidal littorinid species from Hong Kong to show how the SCE can bias size-assortative mating estimates from mating pairs captured in the wild, empirically demonstrating the influence of this effect on measures of positive assortative mating. This finding cautions that studies that have overlooked SCE may have misinterpreted the magnitude and the cause of assortative mating, and we provide a new analytical approach to protect against this potential bias in future studies.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Arnqvist G, Rowe L, Krupa J, Sih A. 1996. Assortative mating by size: a meta-analysis of mating patterns in water striders. Evolutionary Ecology 10: 265-284.
    • Avaca MS, Narvarte MA, Martín PR. 2012. Size assortative mating and effect of female size on reproductive output of the nassariid Buccinanops globulosus. Journal of Sea Research 69:16-22.
    • Carvajal-Rodríguez A, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2014. A comparative study of Gaussian mating preference functions: a key element of sympatric speciation models. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 113: 642-657.
    • Conde-Padín P, Cruz R, Hollander J, Rolán-Alvarez E. 2008. Revealing the mechanisms of sexual isolation in a case of sympatric and parallel ecological divergence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 94: 513-526.
    • Coyne JA, Orr HA. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Chicago, IL.
    • Crespi BJ. 1989. Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Animal Behaviour 38: 980-1000.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article