↓ Skip to main content

Mother and offspring fitness in an insect with maternal care: phenotypic trade-offs between egg number, egg mass and egg care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2014
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Mother and offspring fitness in an insect with maternal care: phenotypic trade-offs between egg number, egg mass and egg care
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-14-125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa K Koch, Joël Meunier

Abstract

Oviparous females have three main options to increase their reproductive success: investing into egg number, egg mass and/or egg care. Although allocating resources to either of these three components is known to shape offspring number and size, potential trade-offs among them may have key impacts on maternal and offspring fitness. Here, we tested the occurrence of phenotypic trade-offs between egg number, egg mass and maternal expenditure on egg care in the European earwig, Forficula auricularia, an insect with pre- and post-hatching forms of maternal care. In particular, we used a series of laboratory observations and experiments to investigate whether these three components non-additively influenced offspring weight and number at hatching, and whether they were associated with potential costs to females in terms of future reproduction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 101 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 59%
Environmental Science 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Philosophy 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,312,846
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,109
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,210
of 243,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#20
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 243,428 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 71% of its contemporaries.