Ecology

1.Bengis, R. G. A revue of bovine Brucellosis in free-ranging African wildlife. in Proceedings of the ARC-Onderstepoort, OIE International Congress with WHO-Cosponsorship on anthrax, brucellosis, CBPP, clostridial and mycobacterial diseases : Berg-en-Dal, Kruger National Park, South Africa 178–183 (Onderstepoort Veterinary Inst, 1998).2.Kaliner, G., Staak, C., Kalinerj, G. & Staaklu, C. A case of orchitis caused by Brucella abortus in the African buffalo. J. Wildl. Dis. 9, 251–253 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Schiemann, B. & Staak, C. Brucella melitensis in impala (Aepyceros melampus). Vet. Rec. 88, 344–344 (1971).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Ndengu, M. et al. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in cattle and selected wildlife species at selected livestock/wildlife interface areas of the Gonarezhou National Park Zimbabwe. Prev. Vet. Med. 146, 158–165 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Rollinson, D. H. L. Brucella agglutinins in East African game animals. Vet. Rec. 74, 904 (1962).
Google Scholar 
6.De Vos, V. & Van Niekerk, C. A. W. Brucellosis in the Kruger National Park. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 40, 331–334 (1969).
Google Scholar 
7.Sachs, R. & Staak, C. Evidence of brucellosis in antelope in the Serengeti. Vet. Record 79, 857–856 (1966).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.El-Tras, W. F., Tayel, A. A., Eltholth, M. M. & Guitian, J. Brucella infection in fresh water fish : Evidence for natural infection of Nile catfish, Clarias gariepinus, with Brucella melitensis. Vet. Microbiol. 141, 321–325 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Lane, E. P. et al. A systematic health assessment of Indian ocean bottlenose (Tursiops aduncus) and indo-pacific humpback (Sousa plumbea) dolphins incidentally caught in shark nets off the KwaZulu-Natal coast South Africa. PLoS ONE 9, e107038 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Salem, A. A., Hamed, O. M. & Abd-Elkarim, A. M. Studies on some Brucella carriers in Egypt. Assiut Vet Med J 1, 181–187 (1974).
Google Scholar 
11.Condy, J. B. The status of disease in Rhodesian wildlife. Rhod. Sci. News 2, 96–99 (1968).
Google Scholar 
12.Condy, J. B. & Vickers, D. B. The isolation of Brucella abortus from a waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus). Vet. Rec. 85, 200 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bell, L. M., Hayles, L. B. & Chanda, A. B. Evidence of reservoir hosts of Brucella melitensis. Med. J. Zambia 10, 152–153 (1976).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Gradwell, D. V., Schutte, A. P., van Niekerk, C. A. & Roux, D. J. The isolation of Brucella abortus biotype I from African buffalo in the Kruger National Park. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 48, 41–43 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Karesh, W. B. et al. Health evaluation of five sympatric duiker species (Cephalophus spp.). J. Zool. Wildl. Med. 26, 485–502 (1995).
Google Scholar 
16.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bengis, R. G. & Erasmus, J. M. Wildlife diseases in South Africa: A review. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. des Epizoot. 7, 807–821 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Durrheim, D. N. et al. Safety of travel in South Africa: The Kruger National Park. J. Travel Med. 8, 176–191 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Eisenberg, T. et al. Isolation of potentially novel Brucella spp. from frogs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 3753–3755 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hoogstral, H., Kaiser, M. N., Traylor, M. A., Guindy, E. & Gaber, S. Ticks (Ixodidae) on birds migrating from Europe and Asia to Africa 1959–61. Bull. World Health Organ. 28, 235–262 (1963).
Google Scholar 
21.Michel, A. L. A. L. & Bengis, R. G. R. G. The African buffalo: A villain for inter-species spread of infectious diseases in southern Africa. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 79, 5 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Monroe, B. P. et al. Collection and utilization of animal carcasses associated with zoonotic disease in Tshuapa district, the democratic republic of the Congo, 2012. J. Wildl. Dis. 51, 734–738 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Wolhuter, J., Bengis, R. G., Reilly, B. K. & Cross, P. C. Clinical demodicosis in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in the Kruger National Park. J. Wildl. Dis. 45, 2 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Worthington, R. W. & Bigalke, R. D. A review of the infectious diseases of African wild ruminants. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 68, 291–323 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Mühldorfer, K. et al. The role of ‘atypical’ Brucella in amphibians: are we facing novel emerging pathogens?. J. Appl. Microbiol. 122, 40–53 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Ducrotoy, M. et al. Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges for management, diagnosis and control. Acta Trop. 165, 179–193 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Munagandu, et al. Disease constraints for utilization of the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) on game ranches in Zambia. Jpn. J. Vet. Res. 54, 3–13 (2006).
Google Scholar 
28.Munyua, P. et al. Prioritization of zoonotic diseases in Kenya, 2015. PLoS ONE 11, e0161576 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Conrad, P. A., Meek, L. A. & Dumit, J. Operationalizing a One Health approach to global health challenges. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 36, 211–216 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Bekker, J. L., Hoffman, L. C. & Jooste, P. J. Wildlife-associated zoonotic diseases in some southern African countries in relation to game meat safety: A review. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 79, 12 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Muma, J. B. et al. The contribution of veterinary medicine to public health and poverty reduction in developing countries. Vet. Ital. 50, 117–129 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Mugizi, D. R. et al. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Brucella Isolates in Cattle Milk in Uganda. 2015, (2015).33.Mathew, C. et al. First isolation, identification, phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Brucella abortus biovar 3 from dairy cattle in Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 11, 2 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Meyer, M. E. & Morgan, W. J. B. Designation of neotype strains and of biotype reference strains for species of the genus Brucella Meyer and Shaw. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 23, 135–141 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and M. Revisiting brucellosis in the greater yellowstone area. Revisiting Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (National Academies Press, 2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/2475036.Muma, J. B. et al. Brucella seroprevalence of the Kafue lechwe (Kobus leche kafuensis) and Black lechwe (Kobus leche smithemani): Exposure associated to contact with cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 100, 256–260 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Gorsich, E. E., Ezenwa, V. O., Cross, P. C., Bengis, R. G. & Jolles, A. E. Context-dependent survival, fecundity and predicted population-level consequences of brucellosis in African buffalo. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 999–1009 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Hoogstraal, H., Kaiser, M. N., Traylor, M. A., Gaber, S. & Guindy, E. Ticks (Ixodoidea) on birds migrating from Africa to Europe and Asia. Bull. World Health Organ. 24, 197–212 (1961).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Alexander, K. A. et al. Buffalo, bush meat, and the zoonotic threat of brucellosis in Botswana. PLoS ONE 7, e32842 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Munn, Z., Moola, S., Riitano, D. & Lisy, K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int. J. Heal. Policy Manag. 3, 123–128 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Madsen, M. et al. Serologic survey of Zimbabwean wildlife for brucellosis. J. Zoo. Wildl. Med. 26, 240–245 (1995).
Google Scholar 
42.Roberts, M. G. & Heesterbeek, J. A. P. Quantifying the dilution effect for models in ecological epidemiology. J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 2 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Viana, M. et al. Assembling evidence for identifying reservoirs of infection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 270–279 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Souley Kouato, B. et al. Spatio-temporal patterns of foot-and-mouth disease transmission in cattle between 2007 and 2015 and quantitative assessment of the economic impact of the disease in Niger. Transbound Emerg. Dis. 65, 1049–1066 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Godfroid, J., Nielsen, K. & Saegerman, C. Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife. Croat Med. J. 51, 296–305 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Hartling, L. et al. Grey literature in systematic reviews : a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta- analyses in child-relevant reviews. 1–11 (2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z47.Condy, J. B. & Vickers, D. B. Brucellosis in Rhodesian wildlife. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 43, 175–179 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Erume, J. et al. Serological and molecular investigation for brucellosis in swine in selected districts of Uganda. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 48, 1147–1155 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Godfroid, J., Beckmen, K. & Helena Nymo, I. Removal of lipid from serum increases coherence between brucellosis rapid agglutination test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in bears in Alaska, USA. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 912–915 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Matope, G., Bhebhe, E., Muma, J. B. B., Lund, A. & Skjerve, E. Herd-level factors for Brucella seropositivity in cattle reared in smallholder dairy farms of Zimbabwe. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 213–221 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Mwebe, R., Nakavuma, J. & Moriyón, I. Brucellosis seroprevalence in livestock in Uganda from 1998 to 2008: a retrospective study. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 43, 603–608 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Aune, K., Rhyan, J. C., Russell, R., Roffe, T. J. & Corso, B. Environmental persistence of Brucella abortus in the Greater Yellowstone Area. J. Wildl. Manag. 76, 253–261 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Enström, S. et al. Brucella seroprevalence in cattle near a wildlife reserve in Kenya. BMC Res. Notes 10, 2 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Godfroid, J. Brucellosis in wildlife. Rev. Sci. Tech. 21, 277–286 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Martin, C., Pastoret, P. P., Brochier, B., Humblet, M. F. & Saegerman, C. A survey of the transmission of infectious diseases/infections between wild and domestic ungulates in Europe. Vet. Res. 42, 70 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Godfroid, J. et al. A ‘One Health’ surveillance and control of brucellosis in developing countries: Moving away from improvisation. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 36, 241–248 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Kamath, P. L. et al. Genomics reveals historic and contemporary transmission dynamics of a bacterial disease among wildlife and livestock. Nat. Commun. 7, 11448 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Michel, A. L. et al. Wildlife tuberculosis in South African conservation areas: Implications and challenges. Vet. Microbiol. 112, 91–100 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Pandey, G. S. et al. Serosurvey of brucella spp. infection in the Kafue Lechwe (Kobus leche kafuensis) of the Kafue flats in Zambia. Indian Vet. J. 76, 275–278 (1999).
Google Scholar 
60.Olsen, S. & Tatum, F. Swine brucellosis: Current perspectives. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 8, 1–12 (2016).
Google Scholar 
61.Menshawy, A. M. S. et al. Assessment of Genetic Diversity of Zoonotic Brucella spp. Recovered from Livestock in Egypt Using Multiple Locus VNTR Analysis. (2014). doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/35387662.Ibrahim, S. Studies on swine brucellosis in Egypt. J. Egypt Vet. Med. Assoc. 56, 1–12 (1996).
Google Scholar 
63.Ledwaba, B., Mafofo, J. & Van Heerden, H. Genome sequences of Brucella abortus and Brucella suis strains isolated from Bovine in Zimbabwe. Genome Announc. 2, 1063–1077 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Fretin, D. et al. Unexpected Brucella suis biovar 2 infection in a dairy cow, Belgium. Emerging Infectious Diseases 19, 2053–2054 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).65.Maurin, M. Brucellosis at the dawn of the 21st century. Médecine Mal. Infect. 35, 6–16 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Whatmore, A. M. et al. Brucella papionis sp. nov., isolated from baboons (Papio spp.). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 4120–4128 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Godfroid, J., Garin-Bastuji, B., Saegerman, C. & Blasco, J. M. Brucellosis in terrestrial wildlife. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 32, 27–42 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Barendregt, J. J., Doi, S. A., Lee, Y. Y., Norman, R. E. & Vos, T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 67, 974–978 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.EpiGear. EpiGear International. Available at: http://www.epigear.com/. (Accessed: 8th February 2018)70.Doi, S. A. R. R., Barendregt, J. J., Khan, S., Thalib, L. & Williams, G. M. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp. Clin. Trials 45, 130–138 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557–560 (2003).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Heisch, R. B., Cooke, E. R., Harvey, A. E. & De Souz, F. The isolation of Brucella suis from rodents in Kenya. East Afr. Med. J. 40, 132–133 (1963).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Motsi, T. R., Tichiwangana, S. C., Matope, G., Mukarati, N. L. & Studies, V. A serological survey of brucellosis in wild ungulate species from five game parks in Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 80, 586 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Roth, H. H. A survey of brucellosis in game animals in Rhodesia. Bull. Epizoot. Dis. Afr. Bull. des Epizoot en Afrique 15, 133–142 (1967).CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Condy, J. B. & Vickers, D. B. Brucellosis in buffalo in Wankie National Park. Rhod. Vet. J. 8, 58–60 (1976).
Google Scholar 
76.Caron, A. et al. Relationship between burden of infection in ungulate populations and wildlife/livestock interfaces. Epidemiol. Infect. 141, 1522–1535 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Gomo, C. et al. Detection of Brucella abortus in Chiredzi district in Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 79, 1–5 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Chaparro, F., Lawrence, J. V., Bengis, R. & Myburgh, J. G. A serological survey for brucellosis in buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in the Kruger National Park. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 61, 110–111 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Fischer-Tenhagen, C., Hamblin, C., Quandt, S., Frö;lich, K. & Frö Lich, K. Serosurvey for selected infectious disease agents in free-ranging black and white rhinoceros in Africa. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36, 316–323 (2000).80.Caron, A. et al. African buffalo movement and zoonotic disease risk across transfrontier conservation areas Southern Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 22, 277–280 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Herr, S. & Marshall, C. Brucellosis in free-living African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): A serological survey. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 48, 133–134 (1981).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.De Vos, V., Van Niekerk, G. A. W. J. & McConell, E. E. A survey of selected bacteriological infections of the Chacma Baboon Papio Ursinus from the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 16, 1–10 (1973).
Google Scholar 
83.Hamblin, C., Anderson, C. E., Jago, M., Mlengeya, T. & Hirji, K. Antibodies to some pathogenic agents in free-living wild species in Tanzania. Epidemiol. Infect. 105, 585–594 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Assenga, J. A., Matemba, L. E., Muller, S. K., Malakalinga, J. J. & Kazwala, R. R. Epidemiology of Brucella infection in the human, livestock and wildlife interface in the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem, Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 11, 8 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Sachs, R., Staak, C. & Groocock, C. M. Serological investigation of brucellosis in game animals in Tanzania. Bull. Epizoo. Dis. Afr. 16, 93–100 (1968).CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Fyumagwa, R. D., Wambura, P. N., Mellau, L. S. B. & Hoare, R. Seroprevalence of Brucella abortus in buffaloes and wildebeests in the Serengeti ecosystem: A threat to humans and domestic ruminants. Tanzania Vet. J. 26, 2 (2010).
Google Scholar 
87.Matope, G. et al. Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of RBT, c-ELISA and fluorescence polarisation assay for diagnosis of brucellosis in cattle using latent class analysis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 141, 58–63 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Muma, J. B. et al. Serosurvey of Brucella Spp Infection in the Kafue Lechwe (Kobus Leche Kafuensis) of the Kafue Flats in Zambia. J. Wildl. Dis. 46, 1063–1069 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Waghela, S. Animal brucellosis in Kenya: A review. Bull. Anim. Heal. Prod. Afr. 24, 53–59 (1976).CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.Waghela, S., Karstad, L., Waghela, A. S. & Karstad, L. Antibodies to Brucella Spp among blue wildebeest and African Buffalo in Kenya. J. Wildl. Dis. 22, 189–192 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Magwedere, K. et al. Brucellae through the food chain: the role of sheep, goats and springbok (Antidorcus marsupialis) as sources of human infections in Namibia. J. South Afr. Vet. Assoc. Van Die Suid-Afrikaanse Veterinere Ver 82, 205–212 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
92.Karesh, W. B. et al. Health evaluation of black-faced impala (Aepyceros melampus petersi) using blood chemistry and serology. J. Zoo. Wildl. Med. 28, 361–367 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Cooper, A. C. D. & Carmichael, I. H. The incidence of brucellosis in game in Botswana. Bull. Epizoot. Dis. Afr. 22, 119–124 (1974).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Thimm, B. Brucellosis in Uganda.pdf. Bull Epizoot Dis Africa 20, 43–56 (1972).95.Tanner, M. et al. Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in cattle and african buffalo in the limpopo national park mozambique. Transbound Emerg. Dis. 62, 632–638 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Gomo, C., de Garine-Wichatitsky, M., Caron, A. & Pfukenyi, D. M. Survey of brucellosis at the wildlife-livestock interface on the Zimbabwean side of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44, 77–85 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
97.Herr, S. & Marshall, C. Brucellosis in Free-Living African Buffalo (Syncerus-Caffer)—a Serological Survey. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 48, 133–134 (1981).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Soil microbial diversity and community structureIn total, 1,334,381 reads were obtained for the bacterial 16S rRNA genes by high-throughput sequencing. After screening these gene sequences with strict criteria (described in “Materials and methods”), 1,061,916 valid sequences were obtained, accounting for 79.6% of the raw reads. Figure 1A shows that the observed richness, Chao1, and Shannon index in the SS (sweet sugarcane) group supported significantly higher richness (P  More

Rural areas of low-to-middle-income countries host most biodiversity hotspots, where interactions between people and wildlife are frequent. These regions have less access to vaccines than do urban centres (Local Burden of Disease Vaccine Coverage Collaborators Nature 589, 415–419; 2021).Given the broad potential range of hosts for SARS-CoV-2, we suggest that vaccinating often-neglected populations around protected areas will reduce the risk of people infecting wildlife and creating secondary reservoirs of disease, and thence risking potential reinfection of humans with new variants. This should be considered after vaccination of priority groups, such as older people and health workers.Vaccinating people who live near felids, non-human primates, bats and other animals protects wildlife and limits ‘reverse spillovers’. Such events have been documented for various human respiratory viruses, for instance in wild great apes in west Africa (S. Köndgen et al. Curr. Biol. 18, 260–264; 2008).Non-standard actors, such as national park authorities or conservation organizations, could help vaccination to reach remote regions. This is called a One Health approach: it protects the health of people, animals and the environment. More

Sample collection and handlingSource of samples to be screenedSouth Africa currently has 72 official points of entry—8 seaports, 10 airports and 54 land border posts10. The DALRRD has border inspectors at most of these points (although staffing levels have varied considerably). DALRRD border inspectors inspect goods and travellers entering the country for plant contaminants. As part of DALRRD’s biosecurity protocol, three types of samples are collected and sent to DALRRD laboratories in Stellenbosch or Pretoria for further investigation (Fig. 1).

1.

Intervention samples. If the border inspector finds or suspects a pest or pathogen in a consignment, he/she will take a sample and send it to one of DALRRD’s diagnostic laboratories. A suspicion of contamination is often the result of quarantine organisms being detected on previous consignments of the same commodity. The imported consignment is detained at the border until laboratory results are completed. Due to the time-sensitivity of such imports, the samples are usually only inspected or tested for the taxa of concern.

2.

Audit samples. As above, these samples are drawn from consignments of plant products for immediate use. However, they are drawn on an ad hoc (haphazard) basis from consignments that show no signs of contamination during border inspections. In the laboratory, these samples are often inspected or tested for multiple taxa.

3.

Post-entry quarantine (PEQ) samples. Plant products for propagation purposes or nursery material (e.g. in vitro plantlets, seedlings, budwood) are shipped in sealed packages and transported directly to DALRRD’s agricultural quarantine facilities. For small consignments (under 50 units), all units in the consignment are tested and inspected by laboratory officials. For larger consignments, random samples are drawn and inspected following a hypergeometric sampling protocol11. Inspection for arthropods and initial examination for micro-organisms takes place in a biosecurity containment facility (see Saccaggi & Pieterse12 for further details). The material is then grown in a dedicated quarantine facility and further testing for pathogens takes place when the plants are in active growth.

Fig. 1Summary of border and laboratory processes associated with each of the three import sample sources included in this dataset, namely post-entry quarantine (PEQ), intervention and audit samples. Solid lines indicate that these processes are always followed, while dashed lines indicate that the process is sometimes followed. PEQ samples are received from plant propagation or nursery material that needs to be quarantined upon arrival. Intervention samples are received from consignments in which the border inspector finds or suspects a pest or pathogen. Audit samples are ad hoc samples drawn from consignments that show no sign of contamination. These sample sources are explained in more detail in the text.Full size imageTaxa inspection, testing and identification methodsAll inspections, testing and identifications are carried out by DALRRD laboratory officials specialised in each taxonomic group. Taxonomic identifications are routinely done by DALRRD officials, taxonomists at the Biosystematics Division of the South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC) or higher education institutions, depending on the expertise available at the time. All recorded identifications in the dataset were retained, regardless of level of identification or biosecurity status of the organism. It should, however, be noted that all organisms found were not always recorded (see below for further explanation).Arthropods (mostly insects and mites) and Molluscs are detected via visual inspection using a stereo-microscope. For these taxa, all organisms detected are recorded. Organisms are most commonly identified morphologically, with molecular identification being performed for certain groups. Identification is performed to the point at which a reasonable phytosanitary decision can be made (i.e. sometimes taxonomic precision is sacrificed for time and/or resource efficiency and logistic reasons). Thus specimens from predatory or saprophytic groups are often only identified to family or genus, while specimens within plant-feeding groups are identified to species where possible.Nematodes are detected by extraction from samples using relevant extraction methods. Saprophytic and predatory nematodes are sometimes noted, but often ignored as they are not considered to be of phytosanitary concern. Plant-feeding nematodes are identified morphologically to species where possible.Fungi and Bacteria are detected visually in the growing plant, as well as by conventional isolation and plating techniques, followed by biochemical tests and/or morphological identification. Some targeted pathogens are detected and identified by molecular techniques such as PCR and DNA sequencing. Saprophytic or secondary fungi or bacteria are sometimes noted, but often not recorded as part of the sample record.Viruses are screened for by immunological techniques, notably ELISA and hardwood and herbaceous indexing. ELISA techniques detect a target virus of concern and give no information as to the presence or absence of other viruses in the sample. Hardwood and herbaceous indexing are used to determine if any graft- or mechanically-transmissible viruses are present in the sample, although these methods cannot be used to determine the viruses’ identity.Phytoplasma screening is done by nested PCR designed to detect any phytoplasma. On specific crops, phytoplasma groups are detected by using targeted PCR methods. If necessary, sequencing of PCR products is used for more specific identification.Data collection and handlingMetadata for samples were recorded by the border inspector before submission to DALRRD’s laboratories. Ideally, he/she recorded geographic origin of the commodity, crop and sample type, date of collection, details of importer and exporter, organisms to test for and any additional observations. However, in practice, this information was not always recorded in full. See Tables 1, 2 and 3 for more details on information included in the dataset. Due to the sensitivity of this kind of trade data, some of the data in the current dataset are grouped or anonymised to protect confidentiality. In particular, import date is only listed as month and year and the names of importers and exporters are removed.Table 1 A summary of information fields and descriptions for each imported sample recorded in the South African plant import dataset used in the datasheet “List of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23.Full size tableTable 2 Information fields and descriptions for taxa information associated with contaminant organisms detected on import samples received by South Africa used in the datasheet “Metadata of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23.Full size tableTable 3 List of import commodity types used in the datasheet “List of contamiants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23. The original categories listed by the inspectors were expanded to 30 commodity types based on additional laboratory information and expert experience.Full size tableElectronic databases of samples received by the DALRRD laboratories were maintained by the laboratory staff. These databases were not official departmental databases and therefore did not need to include information relevant to other sections involved in biosecurity. For instance, total number of imports, total size of each consignment, observations of the inspector, details of phytosanitary certificates and release or detention of the consignment were never recorded. The databases also included samples processed by the laboratory for export or for national pest surveys. Partly due to their unofficial status, the databases were transient, with new databases started once software became outdated, the old one became too big or when new categories or information were to be included. For this study, we collated, curated and cross-checked information from nine of these databases, spanning 26 years from 1994 to 2019.Recorded laboratory data varied between taxa and over time and as priorities and understanding of biosecurity changed. In the initial years considered here (ca. 1994–2000), the focus was on pests or pathogens of quarantine importance, i.e. those on the prohibited list. Other organisms found on samples were not consistently recorded and, when they were, they were often recorded in broad groupings (e.g. “saprophytic nematodes”). More recently, there has been a shift towards recording all organisms detected, but this has still not been done consistently [although from ~2005 onwards the officials responsible for arthropods and molluscs have tried to record everything found (DS, MA personal observations)]. Thus prohibited (i.e. quarantine organisms) were always recorded, but the recording of other contaminants was inconsistent.Data clean-up started with collation of all data from the nine databases. Initially, these contained 99,023 records, with 50,655 recorded as imports, 31,163 as exports, 11,004 as surveys with the remaining 6,201 falling into other categories or uncategorised. Only imports were retained, as this was the only category of interest for this study. For some imports, sample information was recorded in one database, while results of inspections/tests for different taxa were recorded in other databases. Thus a single sample could have up to four duplicate records. Each of these was checked individually and collated into one record for the sample. Spelling mistakes, incorrectly recorded information (e.g. information recorded in the wrong field) and missing information were traced back through paper records and corrected wherever possible. If the original data could not be found, these ambiguous records were excluded. After this data clean-up, the dataset comprised a list of 26,291 import records, of which 2,572 resulted from intervention samples (sample source 1 above, Fig. 1), 10,629 were audit samples (sample source 2 above, Fig. 1) and 13,090 were PEQ samples (sample source 3 above, Fig. 1). Data clean-up then continued for the organisms found on the imported samples.Taxon names were extracted and spelling and classification were corrected and/or added by hand. The list of taxa was checked against the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)13 using the software package ‘rgbif’14 in Rstudio version 1.3.95915 running R version 4.0.216. This highlighted additional spelling mistakes and provided a taxonomic backbone to work from. The classification of a number of taxa had changed over the years and thus using a common taxonomic backbone was needed for consistency. Some taxa, most notably some mite species, could not be found on GBIF. In these cases, the taxonomy provided by the taxonomist who initially identified the organism was retained. Virus taxonomic information was also not available on GBIF and the database of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) was used17.Species occurrence in South Africa was determined by consulting published species distribution lists. The following data sources were consulted: GBIF13 (accessed 29 July and 03 Aug 2020); CABI Crop Pest Compendiums and Invasive Species Compendium18,19,20; the Catalogue of Life21; animal species checklists published by the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)22; and for any remaining species internet searches were conducted for literature citing distributions (listed in Table 2).In South Africa, lists of organisms prohibited from entering the country have been compiled by DALRRD and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFtE). DFFtE’s list of prohibited species focussed mostly on organisms of environmental concern, although some prohibited organisms were also of agricultural concern, while DALRRD is only concerned with agricultural pests. DALRRD issues import permits for each unique crop, commodity and country combination from which plant products originate. Thus there is no single consolidated quarantine list for South Africa. Furthermore, any quarantine list is not static, but needs to change as species’ distributions, taxonomic revisions or pest status changes. Thus it is very difficult to provide a list of which detected organisms are of quarantine status to South Africa at any given time and particularly in a dataset spanning 26 years. As far as possible, we have indicated the regulatory status of the species in the datasheet “Metadata of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23. This regulatory status would have been of critical importance to inform contemporary phytosanitary decisions. However, given that such lists are dynamic and a core aim of presenting these data is to facilitate analyses of future invaders9, it is important to present information on all organisms detected. Moreover, this allows a more comprehensive assessment of the role of different pathways and will facilitate comparisons with other countries. More

This study describes a unique point-based data set for coral reef environments, collected using a photoquadrat survey method published for seagrass environments1. The data set describes the spatial and temporal distribution of benthic community abundance and composition for Heron Reef, a 28 km2 shallow platform reef located in the Capricorn Bunker Group, Southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. On average, 3,600 coral reef data points were collected annually over the period 2002 to 2018. Annual data sets were acquired for independent research projects, but the collection methods were consistent. The initial field data collection design was planned to acquire detailed field data to describe the spatial distribution and variability of benthic composition across the study site to assist with calibration and validation of earth observation-based mapping products.To create a map based on earth observation imagery, it is common to use training or calibration data to transform the imagery into a map of surface properties using a supervised algorithm (e.g. multivariate statistical clustering, random forest)2. To report on the accuracy measures of the maps, reference or validation data are contrasted with the output maps3. Hence for calibration and validation purposes, georeferenced field data must be representative of all the features to be mapped and collection should ideally coincide with satellite image acquisition. Many earth observation approaches have been implemented for mapping the benthic communities of Heron Reef4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and several of these maps are now accessible online6,13,14.Several studies have utilised time series benthic data to analyse changes in benthic community and coral type trends, supporting broad ecological knowledge of coral reef ecosystems such as the Caribbean reef degradation15 and coral cover decline on the GBR16. Similarly, benthic community and coral cover data sets have been identified as important indicators of coral reef health providing the backbone for monitoring and management initiatives around the world17,18.Articles and data sets have been published that describe the benthic community properties of Heron Reef, however, their spatial coverage, number of georeferenced data points, and revisit times are limited19. The time series photoquadrat data sets presented in this paper could be used for further understanding of benthic community distribution, including statistical analysis of trends in coral cover, analysis of changes in benthic community and coral type, or used for testing of other earth observation-based mapping and modelling approaches. Additionally, as our methodology describes machine annotation of the field photoquadrats, it would be possible to reanalyse the photoquadrats with new categories not previously considered important from a biological perspective (e.g. unknown disease or impact, or a specific benthic community type), or for other features (e.g. the counting of sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea sp.)).Detailed analyses of our complete data set may permit a greater understanding of the persistence and/or dynamics of the benthic community at Heron Reef. As such, our ongoing analyses include evaluation of changes in community composition following major impacts such as cyclones, coral bleaching, crown of thorns predation, etc., and additionally, statistical analyses of coral recovery after such impacts. To this degree, these benthic community data sets are invaluable. More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

1.Alho, C. J. R. Importância da biodiversidade para a saúde humana: uma perspectiva ecológica. Estud. Avançados 26, 151–166 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Docile, T. N., Figueiró, R., Portela, C. & Nessimian, J. L. Macroinvertebrate diversity loss in urban streams from tropical forests. Environ. Monit. Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5237-z (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Mutuku, F. M. et al. Distribution, description, and local knowledge of larval habitats of Anopheles gambiae s.l. in a village in western Kenya. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 74, 44–53 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Simard, F. et al. Ecological niche partitioning between Anopheles gambiae molecular forms in Cameroon: the ecological side of speciation. BMC Ecol. 9, 17 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Reiter, P. Yellow fever and dengue: a threat to Europe?. Eurosurveillance 15, 11–17 (2010).
Google Scholar 
6.Medlock, J. M. & Leach, S. A. Effect of climate change on vector-borne disease risk in the UK. Lancet Infect. Dis. 15, 721–730 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Alencar, J. et al. Ecosystem diversity of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in a remnant of Atlantic Forest, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil . Austral Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12508 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Arnell, J. H. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae). XXXII. A revision of the genus Haemagogus. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 10, 1–174 (1973).
Google Scholar 
9.Alencar, J. et al. Flight height preference for oviposition of mosquito (diptera: Culicidae) vectors of sylvatic yellow fever virus near the hydroelectric reservoir of simplicío, minas Gerais, Brazil. J. Med. Entomol. 50, 791–795 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Alencar, J. et al. Diversity of yellow fever mosquito vectors in the Atlantic forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 49, 351–356 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Gerais, M. Febre Amarela : uma visão do cenário atual. (2014).12.De Abreu, F. V. S. et al. Combination of surveillance tools reveals that yellow fever virus can remain in the same atlantic forest area at least for three transmission seasons. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760190076 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Moreno, E. S. et al. Reemergência de febre amarela: Detecção de transmissão no estado de São Paulo, Brasil, 2008. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 44, 290–296 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bergallo, H. Estratégias e ações para a conservação da biodiversidade no estado do Rio de Janeiro. (Instituto Biomas, 2009).15.Silva, S. O. F. et al. Evaluation of multiple immersion effects on eggs from Haemagogus leucocelaenus, Haemagogus janthinomys, and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) under experimental conditions. J. Med. Entomol. 55, 1093–1097 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Forattini, O. P. Culicidologia Médica: Identificação, Biologia, Epidemiologia. (Edusp – Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2002).17.Marcondes, C. & Alencar, J. Revisão de mosquitos Haemagogus Williston (Diptera: Culicidae) do Brasil. Rev. Biomed. 21, 221–238 (2010).
Google Scholar 
18.Reinert, J. F. Revised list of abbreviations for genera and subgenera of Culicidae (diptera) and notes on generic and subgeneric changes. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 17, 51–55 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Guimaráes, A. É., De Mello, R. P., Lopes, C. M. & Gentile, C. Ecology of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in areas of Serra do Mar State Park, State of São Paulo, Brazil. I—monthly frequency and climatic factors. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 95, 1–16 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Gratz, N. G. Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus. Med. Vet. Entomol. 18, 215–227 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Possas, C. et al. Yellow fever outbreak in Brazil: the puzzle of rapid viral spread and challenges for immunisation. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 113, e180278 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Brasil, M. da S. Uma análise da situação de saúde com enfoque nas doenças imunopreveníveis e na imunização. Ministário da Saúde https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/1998/prt3916_30_10_1998.htmlhttp://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/2017/prt2436_22_09_2017.html (2019).23.Cunha, M. S. et al. Epizootics due to Yellow Fever Virus in São Paulo State, Brazil: viral dissemination to new areas (2016–2017). Sci. Rep. 9, 1–13 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Lourenço-de-Oliveira, R. & Failloux, A. B. High risk for chikungunya virus to initiate an enzootic sylvatic cycle in the tropical Americas. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
25.De Figueiredo, M. L. et al. Mosquitoes infected with dengue viruses in Brazil. Virol. J. 7, 1–5 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Marcondes, C. B. & de Ximenes, M. F. F. M. Zika virus in Brazil and the danger of infestation by aedes (Stegomyia) mosquitoes. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 49, 4–10 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Grard, G. et al. Zika virus in Gabon (Central Africa) – 2007: a new threat from Aedes albopictus?. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 8, 1–6 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.de Gomes, A. C. et al. Aedes albopictus em área rural do Brasil e implicações na transmissão de febre amarela silvestre. Rev. Saude Publica 33, 95–97 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Guimarães, A. E. Mosquitos no Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. II. Distribuição vertical. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 80, 1–2 (1985).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Lopes, J., Arias, J. R. & Yood, J. D. C. Evidências Preliminares De Estratificação Vertical De Postura De Ovos Por Alguns Culicidae (Diptera), Em Floresta No Município De Manaus – Amazonas. Acta Amaz. 13, 431–439 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Alencar, J. et al. A comparative study of the effect of multiple immersions on Aedini (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquito eggs with emphasis on sylvan vectors of yellow fever virus. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 109, 114–117 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Entomologia médica. 2.O Volume. Culicini: Culex, Aedes e Psorophora | Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory. (1965).33.Principais Mosquitos de Importância Sanitária no Brasil – Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz): Ciência e tecnologia em saúde para a população brasileira. (FIOCRUZ, 1994).34.Amerasinghe, F. P. & Alagoda, T. S. B. Mosquito oviposition in bamboo traps, with special reference to Aedes albopictus, Aedes novalbopictus and Armigeres subalbatus. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 5, 493–500 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Obenauer, P. J., Kaufman, P. E., Allan, S. A. & Kline, D. L. Infusion-baited ovitraps to survey ovipositional height preferences of container-inhabiting mosquitoes in two Florida habitats. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 1507–1513 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Althouse, B. M. et al. Potential for Zika virus to establish a sylvatic transmission cycle in the Americas. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, 1–11 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Hamrick, P. N. et al. Geographic patterns and environmental factors associated with human yellow fever presence in the Americas. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, 1–27 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Couto-Lima, D. et al. Seasonal population dynamics of the primary yellow fever vector haemagogus leucocelaenus (Dyar & shannon) (diptera: Culicidae) is mainly influenced by temperature in the atlantic forest, Southeast Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 115, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Davis, N. C., Division, I. H., Foundation, R., Health, P. & Health, P. The effect of various temperatures in modifying the extrinsic incubation period of the yellow fever virus in Aedes Aegypti. Am. J. Epidemiol. 16, 163–176 (1931).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Johansson, M. A., Arana-Vizcarrondo, N., Biggerstaff, B. J. & Staples, J. E. Incubation periods of yellow fever virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83, 183–188 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.De Paiva, C. A. et al. Determination of the spatial susceptibility to yellow fever using a multicriteria analysis. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 114, 1–8 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Calado, D. C. & Navarro da Silva, M. A. Evaluation of the temperature influence on the development of Aedes albopictus. Rev. Saude Publica 36, 173–179 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Docile, T. N. et al. Frequency of Aedes sp. Linnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Associated Entomofauna in Bromeliads from a Forest Patch within a densely Urbanized Area. Neotrop. Entomol. 46, 613–621 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Andersson, M. B. Sexual Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, 1994).2.Clark, C. J. The role of power versus energy in courtship: what is the ‘energetic cost’of a courtship display? Anim. Behav. 84, 269–277 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Vehrencamp, S. L., Bradbury, J. W. & Gibson, R. M. The energetic cost of display in male sage grouse. Anim. Behav. 38, 885–896 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Kotiaho, J. S. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol. Rev. 76, 365–376 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Mappes, J., Alatalo, R. V., Kotiaho, J. & Parri, S. Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 785–789 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Zuk, M. & Kolluru, G. R. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q. Rev. Biol. 73, 415–438 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Woods, W. A. Jr, Hendrickson, H., Mason, J. & Lewis, S. M. Energy and predation costs of firefly courtship signals. Am. Nat.170, 702–708 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Lande, R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–3725 (1981).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 771–783 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Tomkins, J. L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tregenza, T. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 323–328 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Grafen, A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517–546 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Johnstone, R. A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70, 1–65 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Seymour, R. M. & Sozou, P. D. Duration of courtship effort as a costly signal. J. Theor. Biol. 256, 1–13 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Byers, J., Hebets, E. & Podos, J. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Anim. Behav. 79, 771–778 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Moran, N. P., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Schielzeth, H. & Reinhold, K. Poor nutritional condition promotes high-risk behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12655 (2020).16.Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16, R755–R765 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kokko, H. Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 99–107 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Moore, F. R., Shuker, D. M. & Dougherty, L. Stress and sexual signaling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Behav. Ecol. 27, 363–371 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Dougherty, L. R. Meta-analysis shows the evidence for context-dependent mating behaviour is inconsistent or weak across animals. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13679 (2021).20.Umbers, K. D., Symonds, M. R. & Kokko, H. The mathematics of female pheromone signaling: strategies for aging virgins. Am. Nat. 185, 417–432 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Simmons, L. W. Sexual signalling by females: do unmated females increase their signalling effort? Biol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0298 (2015).22.Reynolds, J. D. Should attractive individuals court more? Theory and a test. Am. Nat. 141, 914–927 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Variation in courtship rate in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes: is it related to male attractiveness? Behav. Ecol. 9, 605–611 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Candolin, U. The relationship between signal quality and physical condition: is sexual signalling honest in the three-spined stickleback? Anim. Behav. 58, 1261–1267 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Clutton-Brock, T. H. Reproductive effort and terminal investment in iteroparous animals. Am. Nat. 123, 212–229 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Duffield, K. R., Bowers, E. K., Sakaluk, S. K. & Sadd, B. M. A dynamic threshold model for terminal investment. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 185 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Buchanan, K. L., Spencer, K. A., Goldsmith, A. & Catchpole, C. Song as an honest signal of past developmental stress in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 1149–1156 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Chemnitz, J., Jentschke, P. C., Ayasse, M. & Steiger, S. Beyond species recognition: somatic state affects long-distance sex pheromone communication. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150832 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Richardson, J. & Smiseth, P. T. Nutrition during sexual maturation and at the time of mating affects mating behaviour in both sexes of a burying beetle. Anim. Behav. 151, 77–85 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Balsby, T. J. Song activity and variability in relation to male quality and female choice in whitethroats Sylvia communis. J. Avian Biol. 31, 56–62 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Nickley, B., Saintignon, D. & Roberts, J. A. Influence of predator cues on terminal investment in courtship by male Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz, 1844) wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). J. Arachnol. 44, 176–181 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Kehl, T. et al. Pheromone blend does not explain old male mating advantage in a butterfly. Ethology 120, 1137–1145 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Houslay, T. M., Houslay, K. F., Rapkin, J., Hunt, J. & Bussiere, L. F. Mating opportunities and energetic constraints drive variation in age-dependent sexual signalling. Funct. Ecol. 31, 728–741 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Smith, M. J. & Roberts, J. D. Call structure may affect male mating success in the quacking frog Crinia georgiana (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53, 221–226 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Lehtonen, T. K. Signal value of male courtship effort in a fish with paternal care. Anim. Behav. 83, 1153–1161 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Bertram, S. M., Harrison, S. J., Thomson, I. R. & Fitzsimmons, L. P. Adaptive plasticity in wild field cricket’s acoustic signaling. PLoS ONE 8, e69247 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rundus, A. S., Biemuller, R., DeLong, K., Fitzgerald, T. & Nyandwi, S. Age-related plasticity in male mate choice decisions by Schizocosa retrorsa wolf spiders. Anim. Behav. 107, 233–238 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J. & Mengeresen, K. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).39.Harts, A. M., Booksmythe, I. & Jennions, M. D. Mate guarding and frequent copulation in birds: a meta‐analysis of their relationship to paternity and male phenotype. Evolution 70, 2789–2808 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Partridge, C., Boettcher, A. & Jones, A. G. The role of courtship behavior and size in mate preference in the sex-role-reversed gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Ethology 119, 692–701 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Anderson, A. P. & Jones, A. G. Choosy Gulf pipefish males ignore age but prefer active females with deeply keeled bodies. Anim. Behav. 155, 37–44 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Sundin, J., Rosenqvist, G. & Berglund, A. Hypoxia delays mating in the broad-nosed pipefish. Mar. Biol. Res. 11, 747–754 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.McLennan, D. A. & Shires, V. L. Correlation between the level of infection with Bunodera inconstans and Neoechinorhynchus rutili and behavioral intensity in female brook sticklebacks. J. Parasitol. 81, 675–682 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Simmons, L. W. Courtship role reversal in bush-crickets—another role for parasites. Behav. Ecol. 5, 259–266 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Schatral, A. Diet influences male–female interactions in the bush-cricket Requena verticalis (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). J. Insect Behav. 6, 379–388 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Serrano, J. M. & Penna, M. Sexual monomorphism in the advertisement calls of a neotropical frog. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 123, 388–401 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Yamane, T. & Yasuda, T. The effects of mating status and time since mating on female sex pheromone levels in the rice leaf bug, Trigonotylus caelestialium. Naturwissenschaften 101, 153–156 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Klein, S. L. Parasite manipulation of the proximate mechanisms that mediate social behavior in vertebrates. Physiol. Behav. 79, 441–449 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Poulin, R. in Advances in the Study of Behavior Vol. 41 (eds Mitani, J. et al.) 151–186 (Elsevier, 2010).51.Clancey, E. & Byers, J. A. The definition and measurement of individual condition in evolutionary studies. Ethology 120, 845–854 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Wilgers, D. J. & Hebets, E. A. in Animal Signaling and Function: An Integrative Approach (eds Irschick, D. J. et al.) 229–252 (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).53.Řežucha, R. & Reichard, M. Strategic exploitation of fluctuating asymmetry in male Endler’s guppy courtship displays is modulated by social environment. J. Evol. Biol. 28, 356–367 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Oliveira, R. F., Taborsky, M. & Brockmann, H. J. Alternative Reproductive Tactics: An Integrative Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).55.Gray, D. A. Female house crickets, Acheta domesticus, prefer the chirps of large males. Anim. Behav. 54, 1553–1562 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Lubanga, U., Peters, R. & Steinbauer, M. Substrate-borne vibrations of male psyllids vary with body size and age but females are indifferent. Anim. Behav. 120, 173–182 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Ah‐King, M. & Gowaty, P. A. A conceptual review of mate choice: stochastic demography, within‐sex phenotypic plasticity, and individual flexibility. Ecol. Evol. 6, 4607–4642 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Adamo, S. A., Kovalko, I., Easy, R. H. & Stoltz, D. A viral aphrodisiac in the cricket Gryllus texensis. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 1970–1976 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Aguilar, T. M., Maia, R., Santos, E. S. A. & Macedo, R. H. Parasite levels in blue-black grassquits correlate with male displays but not female mate preference. Behav. Ecol. 19, 292–301 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Ahtiainen, J. J., Alataio, R. V., Mappes, J. & Vertainen, L. Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual performance in the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 40, 281–292 (2003).
Google Scholar 
62.Ahtiainen, J. J., Alatalo, R. V., Kortet, R. & Rantala, M. J. Immune function, dominance and mating success in drumming male wolf spiders Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 826–832 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Alonso, J. C., Magana, M., Martin, C. A. & Palacin, C. Sexual traits as quality indicators in lekking male great bustards. Ethology 116, 1084–1098 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Alonso, J. C., Magana, M., Palacin, C. & Martin, C. A. Correlates of male mating success in great bustard leks: the effects of age, weight, and display effort. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1589–1600 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Amorim, M. C. P. & Almada, V. C. The outcome of male–male encounters affects subsequent sound production during courtship in the cichlid fish Oreochromis mossambicus. Anim. Behav. 69, 595–601 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Amorim, M. C. P. & Neves, A. S. M. Acoustic signalling during courtship in the painted goby, Pomatoschistus pictus. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 87, 1017–1023 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Amorim, M. C. P. et al. Painted gobies sing their quality out loud: acoustic rather than visual signals advertise male quality and contribute to mating success. Funct. Ecol. 27, 289–298 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Amorim, M. C. P. et al. Lusitanian toadfish song reflects male quality. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 2997–3004 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Amundsen, T. & Forsgren, E. Male preference for colourful females affected by male size in a marine fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54, 55–64 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.An, D. & Waldman, B. Enhanced call effort in Japanese tree frogs infected by amphibian chytrid fungus. Biol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0018 (2016).71.Andersson, S. Costs of sexual advertising in the lekking Jackson’s Widowbird. Condor 96, 1–10 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Andrade, M. C. B. & Mason, A. C. Male condition, female choice, and extreme variation in repeated mating in a scaly cricket, Ornebius aperta (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Mogoplistinae). J. Insect Behav. 13, 483–497 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Anichini, M., Frommolt, K. H. & Lehmann, G. U. C. To compete or not to compete: bushcricket song plasticity reveals male body condition and rival distance. Anim. Behav. 142, 59–68 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Arak, A. Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive atraction? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 317–327 (1988).
Google Scholar 
75.Arvidsson, B. L. & Neergaard, R. Mate choice in the willow warbler—a field experiment. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 225–229 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Atagan, Y. & Forstmeier, W. Protein supplementation decreases courtship rate in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 83, 69–74 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Backwell, P. R. Y., Jennions, M. D., Christy, J. H. & Schober, U. Pillar building in the fiddler-crab Uca beebei—evidence for a condition dependent ornament. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36, 185–192 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Bakker, T. C. M. & Milinski, M. Sequential female choice and the previous male effect in sticklebacks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 205–210 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Becker, L. J. S., Aspbury, A. S. & Gabor, C. R. Body size dependent male sexual behavior in a natural population of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Am. Midl. Nat. 167, 366–372 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Bee, M. A. et al. Assessing acoustic signal variability and the potential for sexual selection and social recognition in boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata). Ethology 116, 564–576 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Beeler, A. E., Rauter, C. M. & Moore, A. J. Pheromonally mediated mate attraction by males of the burying beetle Nicrophorus orbicollis: alternative calling tactics conditional on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Behav. Ecol. 10, 578–584 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Bertram, S. M. & Bowen, M. Field cricket species differences in the temporal patterns of long-distance mate attraction signals. Ethology 112, 850–857 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Bertram, S. M., Whattam, E. M., Visanuvimol, L., Bennett, R. & Lauzon, C. Phosphorus availability influences cricket mate attraction displays. Anim. Behav. 77, 525–530 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Birkhead, T. R., Fletcher, F. & Pellatt, E. J. Sexual selection in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata: condition, sex traits and immune capacity. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 44, 179–191 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Biro, P. A., Fanson, K. V. & Santostefano, F. Stress-induced peak (but not resting) metabolism correlates with mating display intensity in male guppies. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6537–6545 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Bolund, E., Martin, K., Kempenaers, B. & Forstmeier, W. Inbreeding depression of sexually selected traits and attractiveness in the zebra finch. Anim. Behav. 79, 947–955 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Bolund, E., Schielzeth, H. & Forstmeier, W. No heightened condition dependence of zebra finch ornaments—a quantitative genetic approach. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 586–597 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Bosholn, M., Fecchio, A., Silveira, P., Braga, E. M. & Anciaes, M. Effects of avian malaria on male behaviour and female visitation in lekking blue-crowned manakins. J. Avian Biol. 47, 457–465 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Brandt, L. S. E., Ludwar, B. C. & Greenfield, M. D. Co-occurrence of preference functions and acceptance thresholds in female choice: mate discrimination in the lesser wax moth. Ethology 111, 609–625 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Briggs, V. S. Call trait variation in Morelett’s tree frog, Agalychnis moreletii, of Belize. Herpetologica 66, 241–249 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Buchanan, K. L., Catchpole, C. K., Lewis, J. W. & Lodge, A. Song as an indicator of parasitism in the sedge warbler. Anim. Behav. 57, 307–314 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Buchinger, T. J. et al. Increased pheromone signaling by small male sea lamprey has distinct effects on female mate search and courtship. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 155 (2017).93.Callander, S., Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Y. The effect of claw size and wave rate on female choice in a fiddler crab. J. Ethol. 30, 151–155 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Candolin, U. & Salesto, T. Does competition allow male mate choosiness in threespine sticklebacks? Am. Nat. 173, 273–277 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Castellano, S., Rosso, A., Doglio, S. & Giacoma, C. Body size and calling variation in the green toad (Bufo viridis). J. Zool. 248, 83–90 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Chiswell, R., Girard, M., Fricke, C. & Kasumovic, M. M. Prior mating success can affect allocation towards future sexual signaling in crickets. PeerJ 2, e657 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Churchill, E. R., Dytham, C. & Thom, M. D. F. Differing effects of age and starvation on reproductive performance in Drosophila melanogaster. Sci. Rep. 9, 2167 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
98.Clark, D. C., DeBano, S. J. & Moore, A. J. The influence of environmental quality on sexual selection in Nauphoeta cinerea (Dictyoptera: Blaberidae). Behav. Ecol. 8, 46–53 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Clark, D. C. & Moore, A. J. Social communication in the Madagascar hissing cockroach—features of male courtship hisses and a comparison of courtship and agonistic hisses. Behaviour 132, 401–417 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Clayton, D. H. Mate choice in experimentally parasitized rock doves: lousy males lose. Am. Zool. 30, 251–262 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Cobb, M., Connolly, K. & Burnet, B. The relationship between locomotor activity and courtship in the melanogaster species sub-group of Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 35, 705–713 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Cordes, N. et al. Larval food composition affects courtship song and sperm expenditure in a lekking moth. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 34–41 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Cornuau, J. H., Schmeller, D. S., Courtois, E. A., Jolly, T. & Loyau, A. It takes two to tango: relative influence of male and female identity and morphology on complex courtship display in a newt species. Ethology 121, 218–226 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Costa, F. J. V. & Macedo, R. H. Coccidian oocyst parasitism in the blue-black grassquit: influence on secondary sex ornaments and body condition. Anim. Behav. 70, 1401–1409 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Crocker-Buta, S. P. & Leary, C. J. Hormonal and social correlates of courtship signal quality and behaviour in male green treefrogs. Anim. Behav. 146, 13–22 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.da Rocha, S. M. C., Lima, A. P. & Kaefer, I. L. Territory size as a main driver of male-mating success in an Amazonian nurse frog (Allobates paleovarzensis, Dendrobatoidea). Acta Ethol. 21, 51–57 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.David, M., Auclair, Y., Dall, S. R. X. & Cezilly, F. Pairing context determines condition-dependence of song rate in a monogamous passerine bird. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122177 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Deb, R., Bhattacharya, M. & Balakrishnan, R. Females of a tree cricket prefer larger males but not the lower frequency male calls that indicate large body size. Anim. Behav. 84, 137–149 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Devigili, A., Kelley, J. L., Pilastro, A. & Evans, J. P. Expression of pre- and postcopulatory traits under different dietary conditions in guppies. Behav. Ecol. 24, 740–749 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Drayton, J. M., Hunt, J., Brooks, R. & Jennions, M. D. Sounds different: inbreeding depression in sexually selected traits in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1138–1147 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
111.Drayton, J. M., Milner, R. N. C., Hunt, J. & Jennions, M. D. Inbreeding and advertisement calling in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus: laboratory and field experiments. Evolution 64, 3069–3083 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
112.Droney, D. C. Environmental influences on male courtship and implications for female choice in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 51, 821–830 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Droney, D. C. The influence of the nutritional content of the adult male diet on testis mass, body condition and courtship vigour in a Hawaiian Drosophila. Funct. Ecol. 12, 920–928 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Duffield, K. R. et al. Age-dependent variation in the terminal investment threshold in male crickets. Evolution 72, 578–589 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Eastwood, L. & Burnet, B. Courtship latency in male Drosophila melanogaster. Behav. Genet. 7, 359–372 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Engqvist, L. & Sauer, K. P. Influence of nutrition on courtship and mating in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata (Mecoptera, insecta). Ethology 109, 911–928 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Forrest, T. G. et al. Mate choice in ground crickets (Gryllidae, Nemoiinae). Fla. Entomol. 74, 74–80 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
118.Galeotti, P. et al. Courtship displays and mounting calls are honest, condition-dependent signals that influence mounting success in Hermann’s tortoises. Can. J. Zool. 83, 1306–1313 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
119.Gibson, J. S. & Uetz, G. W. Effect of rearing environment and food availability on seismic signalling in male wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 84, 85–92 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
120.Gibson, R. M. Relationships between blood parasites, mating success and phenotypic cues in male sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus. Am. Zool. 30, 271–278 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Gilbert, R., Karp, R. D. & Uetz, G. W. Effects of juvenile infection on adult immunity and secondary sexual characters in a wolf spider. Behav. Ecol. 27, 946–954 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
122.Gilbert, R. & Uetz, G. W. Courtship and male ornaments as honest indicators of immune function. Anim. Behav. 117, 97–103 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Given, M. Interrelationships among calling effort, growth rate, and chorus tenure in Bufo fowleri. Copeia 2002, 979–987 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Greenspan, S. E., Roznik, E. A., Schwarzkopf, L., Alford, R. A. & Pike, D. A. Robust calling performance in frogs infected by a deadly fungal pathogen. Ecol. Evol. 6, 5964–5972 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
125.Gumulka, M. & Rozenboim, I. Effect of the age of ganders on reproductive behavior and fertility in a competitive mating structure. Ann. Anim. Sci. 17, 733–746 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Hankison, S. J. & Ptacek, M. B. Within and between species variation in male mating behaviors in the Mexican sailfin mollies Poecilia velifera and P. petenensis. Ethology 113, 802–812 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
127.Harrison, S. J., Thomson, I. R., Grant, C. M. & Bertram, S. M. Calling, courtship, and condition in the fall field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus. PLoS ONE 8, e60356 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
128.Hausfater, G., Gerhardt, H. C. & Klump, G. M. Parasites and mate choice in gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor. Am. Zool. 30, 299–311 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Hay, D. E. & McPhail, J. D. Courtship behaviour of male threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) from old and new hybrid zones. Behaviour 137, 1047–1063 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
130.Head, M. L., Fox, R. J. & Barber, I. Environmental change mediates mate choice for an extended phenotype, but not for mate quality. Evolution 71, 135–144 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
131.Hegde, S. N. & Krishna, M. S. Size-assortative mating in Drosophila malerkotliana. Anim. Behav. 54, 419–426 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
132.Hegyi, G. et al. Nutritional correlates and mate acquisition role of multiple sexual traits in male collared flycatchers. Naturwissenschaften 97, 567–576 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Henderson, L. J., Brazeal, K. R. & Hahn, T. P. Plumage coloration and social context influence male investment in song. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180300 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Hermann, C. M., Brudermann, V., Zimmermann, H., Vollmann, J. & Sefc, K. M. Female preferences for male traits and territory characteristics in the cichlid fish Tropheus moorii. Hydrobiologia 748, 61–74 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
135.Hoefler, C. D., Carlascio, A. L., Persons, M. H. & Rypstra, A. L. Male courtship repeatability and potential indirect genetic benefits in a wolf spider. Anim. Behav. 78, 183–188 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
136.Hoefler, C. D., Moore, J. A., Reynolds, K. T. & Rypstra, A. L. The effect of experience on male courtship and mating behaviors in a cellar spider. Am. Midl. Nat. 163, 255–268 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Hoefler, C. D., Persons, M. H. & Rypstra, A. L. Evolutionarily costly courtship displays in a wolf spider: a test of viability indicator theory. Behav. Ecol. 19, 974–979 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
138.Hoileitner, M., Nechtelberger, H. & Hoi, H. Song rate as a signal for nest-site quality in blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 399–405 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
139.Holzer, B., Jacot, A. & Brinkhof, M. W. G. Condition-dependent signaling affects male sexual attractiveness in field crickets, Gryllus campestris. Behav. Ecol. 14, 353–359 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Honarmand, M., Riebel, K. & Naguib, M. Nutrition and peer group composition in early adolescence: impacts on male song and female preference in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 107, 147–158 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
141.Houde, A. E. & Torio, A. J. Effect of parasitic infection on male color pattern and female choice in guppies. Behav. Ecol. 3, 346–351 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
142.Howard, R. D. & Young, J. R. Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Anim. Behav. 55, 1165–1179 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
143.Hughes, A. L. Male size, mating success, and mating strategy in the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (Poeciliidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 271–278 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
144.Humfeld, S. C. Condition-dependent signaling and adoption of mating tactics in an amphibian with energetic displays. Behav. Ecol. 24, 859–870 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
145.Jacot, A., Scheuber, H. & Brinkhof, M. W. G. Costs of an induced immune response on sexual display and longevity in field crickets. Evolution 58, 2280–2286 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
146.Jacot, A., Scheuber, H., Holzer, B., Otti, O. & Brinkhof, M. W. G. Diel variation in a dynamic sexual display and its association with female mate-searching behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 579–585 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
147.Jennions, M. D. Tibial coloration, fluctuating asymmetry and female choice behaviour in the damselfly Platycypha caligata. Anim. Behav. 55, 1517–1528 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
148.Jha, N. A. & Kumar, V. Protein-rich food does not affect singing behaviour and song quality in adult zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Curr. Sci. 111, 1693–1696 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
149.Jiguet, F. & Bretagnolle, V. Sexy males and choosy females on exploded leks: correlates of male attractiveness in the Little Bustard. Behav. Process. 103, 246–255 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
150.Jones, K. M., Monaghan, P. & Nager, R. G. Male mate choice and female fecundity in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 62, 1021–1026 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
151.Joshi, A. M., Narayan, E. J. & Gramapurohit, N. P. Interrelationship among steroid hormones, energetics and vocalisation in the Bombay night frog (Nyctibatrachus humayuni). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 246, 142–149 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
152.Joyce, A. L., Bernal, J. S., Vinson, S. B. & Lomeli-Flores, R. Influence of adult size on mate choice in the solitary and gregarious parasitoids, Cotesia marginiventris and Cotesia flavipes. J. Insect Behav. 22, 12–28 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
153.Junca, F. A. et al. Advertisement call of species of the genus Frostius Cannatella 1986 (Anura: Bufonidae). Acta Herpetol. 7, 189–201 (2012).
Google Scholar 
154.Kaefer, I. L. & Lima, A. P. Sexual signals of the Amazonian frog Allobates paleovarzensis: geographic variation and stereotypy of acoustic traits. Behaviour 149, 15–33 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
155.Kahn, A. T., Dolstra, T., Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Y. Strategic male courtship effort varies in concert with adaptive shifts in female mating preferences. Behav. Ecol. 24, 906–913 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
156.Karl, I., Heuskin, S. & Fischer, K. Dissecting the mechanisms underlying old male mating advantage in a butterfly. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 837–849 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
157.Kaspi, R., Taylor, P. W. & Yuval, B. Diet and size influence sexual advertisement and copulatory success of males in Mediterranean fruit fly leks. Ecol. Entomol. 25, 279–284 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
158.Kennedy, C. E. J., Endler, J. A., Poynton, S. L. & McMinn, H. Parasite load predicts mate choice in guppies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 291–295 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
159.Ketola, T., Kortet, R. & Kotiaho, J. S. Endurance in exercise is associated with courtship call rate in decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus. Evol. Ecol. Res. 11, 1131–1139 (2009).
Google Scholar 
160.Ketola, T. & Kotiaho, J. S. Inbreeding, energy use and sexual signaling. Evol. Ecol. 24, 761–772 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
161.Kim, T. W. & Choe, J. C. The effect of food availability on the semilunar courtship rhythm in the fiddler crab Uca lactea (de Haan) (Brachyura: Ocypodidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54, 210–217 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
162.Kim, T. W., Sakamoto, K., Henmi, Y. & Choe, J. C. To court or not to court: reproductive decisions by male fiddler crabs in response to fluctuating food availability. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1139–1147 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
163.King, B. H., Saporito, K. B., Ellison, J. H. & Bratzke, R. M. Unattractiveness of mated females to males in the parasitoid wasp Spalangia endius. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 350–356 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
164.Kitsunezuka, K., Okutani-Akamatsu, Y., Watanabe, T. & Oku, K. Effects of male age on the mating behavior of both sexes in the sorghum plant bug, Stenotus rubrovittatus (Hemiptera: Miridae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 48, 73–77 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
165.Knapp, R. A. Influence of energy reserves on the expression of a secondary sexual trait in male bicolor damselfish, Stegastes partitus. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57, 672–681 (1995).
Google Scholar 
166.Kodric-Brown, A. Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25, 393–401 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
167.Kolluru, G. R., Bertram, S. M., China, E. H., Dunmeyer, C. V. & Graves, J. S. Mating behavior and its morphological correlates in two color morphs of Girardinus metallicus (Pisces: Poeciliidae), a species previously thought not to exhibit courtship display. Behav. Process. 106, 44–52 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
168.Kotiaho, J. S. Testing the assumptions of conditional handicap theory: costs and condition dependence of a sexually selected trait. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 188–194 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
169.Kotiaho, J. S. Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetles. Behav. Ecol. 13, 791–799 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
170.Kotiaho, J. S., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J. & Parri, S. Sexual signalling and viability in a wolf spider (Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata): measurements under laboratory and field conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46, 123–128 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
171.Kotiaho, J. S., Simmons, L. W. & Tomkins, J. L. Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410, 684–686 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
172.Krishna, M. S. & Hegde, S. N. Influence of body size in mating success in three sympatric species of Drosophila. Ital. J. Zool. 70, 47–52 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
173.Kuczynski, M. C., Bello-DeOcampo, D. & Getty, T. No evidence of terminal investment in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor): older males do not signal at greater effort. Copeia 103, 530–535 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
174.Kuczynski, M. C., Storks, L., Gering, E. & Getty, T. Male treefrogs in low condition resume signaling faster following simulated predator attack. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 347–355 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
175.Kuriwada, T. Horn length is not correlated with calling efforts in the horn-headed cricket Loxoblemmus doenitzi (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Entomol. Sci. 19, 228–232 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
176.Kuriwada, T. & Kasuya, E. Age-dependent changes in calling effort in the bell cricket Meloimorpha japonica. J. Ethol. 29, 99–105 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
177.Leary, C. J., Lippincott, J., Harris, S. & Hawkins, D. L. A test of the energetics-hormone vocalization model in the green treefrog. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 213, 32–39 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
178.Lehtonen, T. K., Svensson, P. A. & Wong, B. B. M. The influence of recent social experience and physical environment on courtship and male aggression. BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 18 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
179.Lehtonen, T. K., Svensson, P. A. & Wong, B. B. M. Aggressive desert goby males also court more, independent of the physiological demands of salinity. Sci. Rep. 8, 9352 (2018).180.Lode, T. & Le Jacques, D. Influence of advertisement calls on reproductive success in the male midwife toad Alytes obstetricans. Behaviour 140, 885–898 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
181.Lomborg, J. P. & Toft, S. Nutritional enrichment increases courtship intensity and improves mating success in male spiders. Behav. Ecol. 20, 700–708 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
182.Lopez, P. T. & Narins, P. M. Mate choice in the neotropical frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui. Anim. Behav. 41, 757–772 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
183.Lynn, S. E., Stamplis, T. B., Barrington, W. T., Weida, N. & Hudak, C. A. Food, stress, and reproduction: short-term fasting alters endocrine physiology and reproductive behavior in the zebra finch. Horm. Behav. 58, 214–222 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
184.Magellan, K., Pettersson, L. B. & Magurran, A. E. Quantifying male attractiveness and mating behaviour through phenotypic size manipulation in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58, 366–374 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
185.Magoolagan, L., Mawby, P. J., Whitehead, F. A. & Sharp, S. P. The effect of early life conditions on song traits in male dippers (Cinclus cinclus). PLoS ONE 13, e0205101 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
186.Manica, L. T., Maia, R., Dias, A., Podos, J. & Macedoc, R. H. Vocal output predicts territory quality in a neotropical songbird. Behav. Process. 109, 21–26 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
187.Mariette, M., Kelley, J. L., Brooks, R. & Evans, J. P. The effects of inbreeding on male courtship behaviour and coloration in guppies. Ethology 112, 807–814 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
188.Mateos, C. & Carranza, J. Effects of male dominance and courtship display on female choice in the ring-necked pheasant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45, 235–244 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
189.Matsuo, T. Effect of social condition on behavioral development during early adult phase in Drosophila prolongata. J. Ethol. 36, 15–22 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
190.McAuley, E. M. & Bertram, S. M. Field crickets compensate for unattractive static long-distance call components by increasing dynamic signalling effort. PLoS ONE 11, e0167311 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
191.McCullough, E. L. & Simmons, L. W. Selection on male physical performance during male–male competition and female choice. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1288–1295 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
192.McLean, M. J., Bishop, P. J., Hero, J. M. & Nakagawa, S. Assessing the information content of calls of Litoria chloris: quality signalling versus individual recognition. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 120–126 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
193.McNeil, G. V., Friesen, C. N., Gray, S. M., Aldredge, A. & Chapman, L. J. Male colour variation in a eurytopic African cichlid: the role of diet and hypoxia. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118, 551–568 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
194.Memmott, R. & Briffa, M. Exaggerated displays do not improve mounting success in male seaweed flies Fucellia tergina (Diptera: Anthomyiidae). Behav. Process. 120, 73–79 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
195.Milazzo, M. et al. Ocean acidification affects fish spawning but not paternity at CO2 seeps. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20161021 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
196.Morales, M. B., Alonso, J. C., Martin, C., Martin, E. & Alonso, J. Male sexual display and attractiveness in the great bustard Otis tarda: the role of body condition. J. Ethol. 21, 51–56 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
197.Morris, M. R. Female choice of large males in the treefrog Hyla ebraccata. J. Zool. 223, 371–378 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
198.Morris, M. R., Rios-Cardenas, O. & Darrah, A. Male mating tactics in the northern mountain swordtail fish (Xiphophorus nezahualcoyotl): coaxing and coercing females to mate. Ethology 114, 977–988 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
199.Muramatsu, D. The function of the four types of waving display in Uca lactea: effects of audience, sand structure, and body size. Ethology 117, 408–415 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
200.Murphy, C. G. Nightly timing of chorusing by male barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa): the influence of female arrival and energy. Copeia 1999, 333–347 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
201.Naguib, M., Heim, C. & Gil, D. Early developmental conditions and male attractiveness in zebra finches. Ethology 114, 255–261 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
202.O’Hanlon, J. C., Wignall, A. E. & Herberstein, M. E. Short and fast vs long and slow: age changes courtship in male orb-web spiders (Argiope keyserlingi). Sci. Nat. 105, 3 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
203.Ohata, M., Wada, K. & Koga, T. Waving display by male Scopimera globosa (Brachyura: Ocypodoidea) as courtship behavior. J. Crustac. Biol. 25, 637–639 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
204.Olsson, K. H., Kvarnemo, C. & Svensson, O. Relative costs of courtship behaviours in nest-building sand gobies. Anim. Behav. 77, 541–546 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
205.Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., Marco, A., Fernández-Benéitez, M. J. & Lizana, M. Alteration of courtship behavior because of water acidification and minor effect of ammonium nitrate in the Iberian newt (Lissotriton boscai). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 1500–1505 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
206.Papadopoulos, N. T., Katsoyannos, B. I., Kouloussis, N. A., Economopoulos, A. P. & Carrey, J. R. Effect of adult age, food, and time of day on sexual calling incidence of wild and mass-reared Ceratitis capitata males. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 89, 175–182 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
207.Pariser, E. C., Mariette, M. M. & Griffith, S. C. Artificial ornaments manipulate intrinsic male quality in wild-caught zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav. Ecol. 21, 264–269 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
208.Partridge, L., Ewing, A. & Chandler, A. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the roles of male and female behaviour. Anim. Behav. 35, 555–562 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
209.Passmore, N. I., Bishop, P. J. & Caithness, N. Calling behavior influences mating success in male painted reed frogs, Hyperolius marmoratus. Ethology 92, 227–241 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
210.Pedroso, S. S., Barber, I., Svensson, O., Fonseca, P. J. & Amorim, M. C. P. Courtship sounds advertise species identity and male quality in sympatric Pomatoschistus spp. gobies. PLoS ONE 8, e64620 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
211.Pelabon, C. et al. Do microsporidian parasites affect courtship in two-spotted gobies? Mar. Biol. 148, 189–196 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
212.Pellitteri-Rosa, D., Sacchi, R., Galeotti, P., Marchesi, M. & Fasola, M. Courtship displays are condition-dependent signals that reliably reflect male quality in Greek tortoises, Testudo graeca. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 10, 10–17 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
213.Perezlachaud, G. & Campan, M. Influence of previous sexual experience and postemergence rearing conditions on the mating-behavior of Chryseida bennetti. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 76, 163–170 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
214.Poole, K. G. & Murphy, C. G. Preferences of female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for larger males: univariate and composite tests. Anim. Behav. 73, 513–524 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
215.Prathibha, M., Krishna, M. S. & Jayaramu, S. C. Male age influence on male reproductive success in Drosophila ananassae (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Ital. J. Zool. 78, 168–173 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
216.Pruett-jones, S. G., Pruett-jones, M. A. & Jones, H. I. Parasites and sexual selection in birds of paradise. Am. Zool. 30, 287–298 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
217.Pryke, S. R. & Andersson, S. Experimental evidence for female choice and energetic costs of male tail elongation in red-collared widowbirds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86, 35–43 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
218.Ptacek, M. B. & Travis, J. Inter-population variation in male mating behaviours in the sailfin mollie, Poecilia latipinna. Anim. Behav. 52, 59–71 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
219.Ptacek, M. B. & Travis, J. Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 51, 1217–1231 (1997).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
220.Rahman, M. M., Kelley, J. L. & Evans, J. P. Condition-dependent expression of pre- and postcopulatory sexual traits in guppies. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2197–2213 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
221.Rahman, M. M., Turchini, G. M., Gasparini, C., Norambuena, F. & Evans, J. P. The expression of pre- and postcopulatory sexually selected traits reflects levels of dietary stress in guppies. PLoS ONE 9, e105856 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
222.Reifer, M. L., Harrison, S. J. & Bertram, S. M. How dietary protein and carbohydrate influence field cricket development, size and mate attraction signalling. Anim. Behav. 139, 137–146 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
223.Rezaei, A., Krishna, M. S. & Santhosh, H. T. Male age affects female mate preference, quantity of accessory gland proteins, and sperm traits and female fitness in D. melanogaster. Zool. Sci. 32, 16–24 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
224.Ritchie, M. G., Sunter, D. & Hockham, L. R. Behavioral components of sex role reversal in the tettigoniid bushcricket Ephippiger ephippiger. J. Insect Behav. 11, 481–491 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
225.Ritschard, M. & Brumm, H. Zebra finch song reflects current food availability. Evol. Ecol. 26, 801–812 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
226.Rodd, F. H. & Sokolowski, M. B. Complex origins of variation in the sexual-behavior of male Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata—interactions between social-environment, heredity, body-size and age. Anim. Behav. 49, 1139–1159 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
227.Rosenthal, M. F. & Hebets, E. A. Temporal patterns of nutrition dependence in secondary sexual traits and their varying impacts on male mating success. Anim. Behav. 103, 75–82 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
228.Sadowski, J. A., Grace, J. L. & Moore, A. J. Complex courtship behavior in the striped ground cricket, Allonemobius socius (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): does social environment affect male and female behavior? J. Insect Behav. 15, 69–84 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
229.Scheuber, H., Jacot, A. & Brinkhof, M. W. G. Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim. Behav. 65, 721–727 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
230.Shakeel, M., He, X. Z., Martin, N. A., Hanan, A. & Wang, Q. Mating behaviour of the European leafminer Scaptomyza flava (Diptera: Drosophilidae). NZ Plant Prot. 63, 108–112 (2010).
Google Scholar 
231.Shelly, T. E., Edu, J. & Pahio, E. Female medflies mate selectively with young males but gain no apparent fitness benefits. J. Insect Behav. 24, 55–66 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
232.Shelly, T. E. & Kennelly, S. S. Starvation and the mating success of wild male Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Insect Behav. 16, 171–179 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
233.Shuker, D. et al. Mating behavior, sexual selection, and copulatory courtship in a promiscuous beetle. J. Insect Behav. 15, 617–631 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
234.Sikkel, P. C. Effects of nest quality on male courtship and female spawning-site choice in an algal-nesting damselfish. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57, 682–689 (1995).
Google Scholar 
235.Sisodia, S. & Singh, B. N. Size dependent sexual selection in Drosophila ananassae. Genetica 121, 207–217 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
236.Smit, J. A. H., Loning, H., Ryan, M. J. & Halfwerk, W. Environmental constraints on size-dependent signaling affects mating and rival interactions. Behav. Ecol. 30, 724–732 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
237.Snekser, J. L., Leese, J., Ganim, A. & Itzkowitz, M. Caribbean damselfish with varying territory quality: correlated behaviors but not a syndrome. Behav. Ecol. 20, 124–130 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
238.Spencer, K. A., Buchanan, K. L., Goldsmith, A. R. & Catchpole, C. K. Song as an honest signal of developmental stress in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Horm. Behav. 44, 132–139 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
239.Spencer, K. A. et al. Developmental stress affects the attractiveness of male song and female choice in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58, 423–428 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
240.Sundin, J., Vossen, L. E., Nilsson-Sköld, H. & Jutfelt, F. No effect of elevated carbon dioxide on reproductive behaviors in the three-spined stickleback. Behav. Ecol. 28, 1482–1491 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
241.Suzaki, Y., Katsuki, M., Miyatake, T. & Okada, Y. Relationships among male sexually selected traits in the bean bug, Riptortus pedestris (Heteroptera: Alydidae). Entomol. Sci. 18, 278–282 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
242.Takeshita, F., Murai, M., Matsumasa, M. & Henmi, Y. Multimodal signaling in fiddler crab: waving to attract mates is condition-dependent but other sexual signals are not. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 140 (2018).243.Tarano, Z. Variation in male advertisement calls in the neotropical frog Physalaemus enesefae. Copeia 2001, 1064–1072 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
244.Taylor, M. I., Turner, G. F., Robinson, R. L. & Stauffer, J. R. Sexual selection, parasites and bower height skew in a bower-building cichlid fish. Anim. Behav. 56, 379–384 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
245.Tejedo, M. Large male mating advantage in natterjack toads, Bufo calamita: sexual selection or energetic constraints? Anim. Behav. 44, 557–569 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
246.Tolle, A. E. & Wagner, W. E. Costly signals in a field cricket can indicate high- or low-quality direct benefits depending upon the environment. Evolution 65, 283–294 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
247.Toth, C. A., Santure, A. W., Holwell, G. I., Pattemore, D. E. & Parsons, S. Courtship behaviour and display-site sharing appears conditional on body size in a lekking bat. Anim. Behav. 136, 13–19 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
248.Turiegano, E., Monedero, I., Pita, M., Torroja, L. & Canal, I. Effect of Drosophila melanogaster female size on male mating success. J. Insect Behav. 26, 89–100 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
249.Van Hout, A. J. M., Pinxten, R., Geens, A. & Eens, M. Non-breeding song rate reflects nutritional condition rather than body condition. PLoS ONE 7, e36547 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
250.Villarreal, A. E., Godin, J. G. J. & Bertram, S. M. Influence of the operational sex ratio on mutual mate choice in the Jamaican field cricket (Gryllus assimilis): testing the predictions of the switch point theorem. Ethology 124, 816–828 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
251.Wacker, S., de Jong, K., Forsgren, E. & Amundsen, T. Large males fight and court more across a range of social environments: an experiment on the two spotted goby Gobiusculus flavescens. J. Fish. Biol. 81, 21–34 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
252.Wagner, W. E. & Hoback, W. W. Nutritional effects on male calling behaviour in the variable field cricket. Anim. Behav. 57, 89–95 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
253.Walling, C. A., Stamper, C. E., Salisbury, C. L. & Moore, A. J. Experience does not alter alternative mating tactics in the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides. Behav. Ecol. 20, 153–159 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
254.Watson, N. L. & Simmons, L. W. Mate choice in the dung beetle Onthophagus sagittarius: are female horns ornaments? Behav. Ecol. 21, 424–430 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
255.Whattam, E. M. & Bertram, S. M. Effects of juvenile and adult condition on long-distance call components in the Jamaican field cricket, Gryllus assimilis. Anim. Behav. 81, 135–144 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
256.Wilgers, D. J. & Hebets, E. A. Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Curr. Zool. 57, 175–186 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
257.Wilgers, D. J. & Hebets, E. A. Age-related female mating decisions are condition dependent in wolf spiders. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 29–38 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
258.Wilson, A. D. M. et al. Behavioral correlations across activity, mating, exploration, aggression, and antipredator contexts in the European house cricket, Acheta domesticus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 703–715 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
259.Win, A. T., Kojima, W. & Ishikawa, Y. Age-related male reproductive investment in courtship display and nuptial gifts in a moth, Ostrinia scapulalis. Ethology 119, 325–334 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
260.Woodhead, A. P. Male age: effect on mating behaviour and success in the cockroach Diploptera punctata. Anim. Behav. 34, 1874–1879 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
261.Yamada, K. & Soma, M. Diet and birdsong: short-term nutritional enrichment improves songs of adult Bengalese finch males. J. Avian Biol. 47, 865–870 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
262.Yuval, B., Kaspi, R., Shloush, S. & Warburg, M. S. Nutritional reserves regulate male participation in Mediterranean fruit fly leks. Ecol. Entomol. 23, 211–215 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
263.Zuk, M. et al. The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am. Nat. 136, 459–473 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
264.Chargé, R., Saint Jalme, M., Lacroix, F., Cadet, A. & Sorci, G. Male health status, signalled by courtship display, reveals ejaculate quality and hatching success in a lekking species. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 843–850 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
265.Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. Practical Meta-analysis (Sage Publications, 2001).266.Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis (Academic Press, 1985).267.Hinchliff, C. E. et al. Synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12764–12769 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
268.R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).269.Michonneau, F., Brown, J. W. & Winter, D. J. rotl: an R package to interact with the Open Tree of Life data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1476–1481 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
270.Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
271.Grafen, A. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 326, 119–157 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
272.Tacutu, R. et al. Human Ageing Genomic Resources: integrated databases and tools for the biology and genetics of ageing. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D1027–D1033 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
273.Carey, J. & Judge, D. Longevity Records: Life Spans of Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Fish (Odense Univ. Press, 2000).274.Höglund, J. & Alatalo, R. V. Leks (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005).275.Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
276.Noble, D. W., Lagisz, M., O’dea, R. E. & Nakagawa, S. Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses. Mol. Ecol. 26, 2410–2425 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
277.Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. & Rothstein, H. Introduction to Meta-analysis (John Wiley, 2009).278.Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 327, 557–560 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
279.Nakagawa, S. & Santos, E. S. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol. Ecol. 26, 1253–1274 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
280.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
281.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
282.Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
283.Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More