Mate choice copying in non-human animals: an update of two meta-analyses.

IF 1.8 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY
Biology Open Pub Date : 2026-10-15 Epub Date: 2026-10-20 DOI:10.1242/bio.062878
Eduardo S A Santos, Aleksandra Milenović, Aneta Arct, Anna Lenz, Ayumi Mizuno, Cassidy Schneider, Christine Sosiak, Erick Lundgren, Hao Qin, Iwo Gross, Jimuel Celeste, Kyle Morrison, Mahi Zakir, Marija Purgar, Santiago Ortega, Sergio Hernandez, Shinichi Nakagawa, Malgorzata Lagisz
{"title":"Mate choice copying in non-human animals: an update of two meta-analyses.","authors":"Eduardo S A Santos, Aleksandra Milenović, Aneta Arct, Anna Lenz, Ayumi Mizuno, Cassidy Schneider, Christine Sosiak, Erick Lundgren, Hao Qin, Iwo Gross, Jimuel Celeste, Kyle Morrison, Mahi Zakir, Marija Purgar, Santiago Ortega, Sergio Hernandez, Shinichi Nakagawa, Malgorzata Lagisz","doi":"10.1242/bio.062878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mate choice copying, the use of social information from others' mating decisions, is a taxonomically widespread form of social learning that can shape sexual selection. Two meta-analyses concluded that social information has a moderate positive effect on mate choice; however, both are based on literature searches that are now at least 7 years old. We asked whether the overall average effect they reported remains supported. Using a multilingual, grey-literature-inclusive search across seven languages, we added 69 effect sizes from 29 studies and harmonised the two source metrics, giving 227 Hedges' g effect sizes from 87 studies and 172 log odds ratios from 69 studies across 33 species. Reanalysed with phylogenetically informed multilevel models, the overall effect remained positive and significant but was appreciably smaller [Hedges' g=0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 to 0.66, versus 0.58; odds ratio=1.81, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.45, versus 2.71]. Heterogeneity was high, located within studies and among species rather than across the phylogeny. Small-study effects were strong on both scales, and correcting for them drew the mean towards zero. In some species, individuals do copy conspecifics' mate choices, but the effect is smaller, more variable, and more sensitive to publication bias than previously estimated.</p>","PeriodicalId":9216,"journal":{"name":"Biology Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology Open","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.062878","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mate choice copying, the use of social information from others' mating decisions, is a taxonomically widespread form of social learning that can shape sexual selection. Two meta-analyses concluded that social information has a moderate positive effect on mate choice; however, both are based on literature searches that are now at least 7 years old. We asked whether the overall average effect they reported remains supported. Using a multilingual, grey-literature-inclusive search across seven languages, we added 69 effect sizes from 29 studies and harmonised the two source metrics, giving 227 Hedges' g effect sizes from 87 studies and 172 log odds ratios from 69 studies across 33 species. Reanalysed with phylogenetically informed multilevel models, the overall effect remained positive and significant but was appreciably smaller [Hedges' g=0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 to 0.66, versus 0.58; odds ratio=1.81, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.45, versus 2.71]. Heterogeneity was high, located within studies and among species rather than across the phylogeny. Small-study effects were strong on both scales, and correcting for them drew the mean towards zero. In some species, individuals do copy conspecifics' mate choices, but the effect is smaller, more variable, and more sensitive to publication bias than previously estimated.

非人类动物的配偶选择复制:两项荟萃分析的更新。
配偶选择复制,即从他人的交配决定中获取社会信息,是一种在分类学上广泛存在的社会学习形式,它可以塑造性选择。两项荟萃分析得出结论,社会信息对择偶有适度的积极影响,但这两项分析都基于至少七年前的文献搜索。我们询问他们报告的总体平均效应是否仍然得到支持。通过对7种语言的多语言、包含灰色文献的搜索,我们增加了来自29项研究的69个效应量,并协调了两个来源指标,得出了来自87项研究的227个Hedges效应量和来自69项研究的172个对数比值比,涉及33个物种。用系统发育的多层模型重新分析,总体效果仍然是积极和显著的,但明显较小(赫奇斯的g=0.45, 95% CI: 0.25至0.66,vs. 0.58;优势比=1.81,95% CI: 1.34至2.45,vs. 2.71)。异质性很高,分布在研究内部和物种之间,而不是在整个系统发育中。小型研究的影响在两个尺度上都很强,对它们进行校正后,均值趋近于零。在一些物种中,个体确实会复制同种动物的择偶选择,但这种影响比之前估计的要小,变化更大,对发表偏倚更敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biology Open
Biology Open BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Biology Open (BiO) is an online Open Access journal that publishes peer-reviewed original research across all aspects of the biological sciences. BiO aims to provide rapid publication for scientifically sound observations and valid conclusions, without a requirement for perceived impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书