↓ 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 Evolutionary Biology, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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 Evolutionary Biology, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 32%
Student > Bachelor 7 25%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 1 4%
Researcher 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 18%

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
#530,100
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#158
of 2,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,342
of 162,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 162,993 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.