Sexual selection driven by direct benefits leads to the erosion of direct benefits

preprint OA: closed
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-27 ⓘ

This paper investigates how sexual selection favoring traits that provide direct benefits to mates can paradoxically lead to the decline or loss of those very benefits over evolutionary time.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text ⓘ

The study uses individual-based evolutionary simulations to examine how female mating preferences and male ornamentation coevolve when sexual selection is driven by direct (non-genetic) benefits, such as paternal quality/care. The authors find that, within generations, male ornamentation reliably signals paternal quality, so female choosiness can initially benefit females and promote preference evolution for ornamented males. However, over evolutionary time, selection favors males who allocate more resources to ornamentation rather than paternal care, eroding the direct benefit and causing population decline, with potential extinction. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Most sexual selection models assume that the evolution of female choosiness is driven by indirect (genetic) benefits, such as the production of more viable offspring or more attractive sons. There is ample empirical evidence that female choosiness can also provide direct (non-genetic) benefits, including access to good territories or paternal care. Yet, theoretical models of direct-benefits sexual selection are scarce. Here, we use individual-based evolutionary simulations to explore the joint evolution of female mating preferences and male ornamentation under sexual selection driven by direct benefits. We find that, within each generation, male ornamentation reliably indicates paternal quality (the direct benefit); females thus benefit from being choosy and readily evolve preferences for male ornamentation. Yet this in turn selects for males to invest resources in ornamentation at the expense of paternal care. Across generations, female selection for ornamented males (driven by the pursuit of direct benefits) thus erodes the very benefit it seeks, leading to population decline and potentially extinction. Our results highlight the complexity and non-intuitive nature of direct-benefits sexual selection.
Full text 1,357 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Most sexual selection models assume that the evolution of female choosiness is driven by indirect (genetic) benefits, such as the production of more viable offspring or more attractive sons. There is ample empirical evidence that female choosiness can also provide direct (non-genetic) benefits, including access to good territories or paternal care. Yet, theoretical models of direct-benefits sexual selection are scarce. Here, we use individual-based evolutionary simulations to explore the joint evolution of female mating preferences and male ornamentation under sexual selection driven by direct benefits. We find that, within each generation, male ornamentation reliably indicates paternal quality (the direct benefit); females thus benefit from being choosy and readily evolve preferences for male ornamentation. Yet this in turn selects for males to invest resources in ornamentation at the expense of paternal care. Across generations, female selection for ornamented males (driven by the pursuit of direct benefits) thus erodes the very benefit it seeks, leading to population decline and potentially extinction. Our results highlight the complexity and non-intuitive nature of direct-benefits sexual selection. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes ↵* These authors are co-first authors.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00