↓ Skip to main content

Experimental evidence for asymmetric mate preference and aggression: behavioral interactions in a woodrat (Neotoma) hybrid zone

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Experimental evidence for asymmetric mate preference and aggression: behavioral interactions in a woodrat (Neotoma) hybrid zone
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quinn R Shurtliff, Peter J Murphy, Jaclyn D Yeiter, Marjorie D Matocq

Abstract

Female mate preferences may be under strong selection in zones of contact between closely related species because of greater variation in available mates and the potential costs of hybridization. We studied female mate preferences experimentally in a zone of secondary contact between Desert and Bryant's Woodrat (Neotoma lepida and N. bryanti) in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada of California. We tested female preference for conspecific versus heterospecific males in paired choice trials in which females could interact freely with males, but males could not interact directly with each other. We compared preferences of females from both allopatric and sympatric sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Professor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 April 2014.
All research outputs
#1,464,623
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#340
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,244
of 220,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#6
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 220,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.