↓ Skip to main content

True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate?
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-157
Pubmed ID
Authors

David N Fisher, Rowan J Doff, Tom A R Price

Abstract

The rate of female remating can have important impacts on a species, from affecting conflict and cooperation within families, to population viability and gene flow. However, determining the level of polyandry in a species can be difficult, with information on the mating system of many species being based on a single experiment, or completely absent. Here we investigate the mating system of the fruit fly Drosophila subobscura. Reports from England, Spain and Canada suggest D. subobscura is entirely monandrous, with no females remating. However, work in Greece suggests that 23% of females remate. We examine the willingness of female D. subobscura to remate in the laboratory in a range of conditions, using flies from both Greece and England. We make a distinction between pseudopolyandry, where a female remates after an ineffective first mating that is incapable of fertilising her eggs, and true polyandry, where a female remates even though she has received suitable sperm from a previous mating.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Student > Bachelor 11 22%
Researcher 10 20%
Other 2 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Unspecified 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,496,106
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,439
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,617
of 209,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#27
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.