↓ Skip to main content

Commentary on Kehl et al. “Young male mating success is associated with sperm number but not with male sex pheromone titres”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Commentary on Kehl et al. “Young male mating success is associated with sperm number but not with male sex pheromone titres”
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12983-018-0256-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Marie Nieberding, Marie-Jeanne Holveck

Abstract

Over the last years, several studies suggested that male courtship activity is more important than female preference for male secondary sexual traits in determining male mating success in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. We use Kehl et al. (Front Zool 12, 2015)'s study and related publications, to highlight three methodological and conceptual aspects of laboratory experiments that distort the social environment compared to natural conditions. We argue that such experimental biases prevent the expression of female mate choice and artificially inflate the role of male activity in determining mating success. We really want to stress that any work performed in laboratory conditions using extreme cage densities or sizes impedes female mate choice and promotes male-male competition when sexual conflict occurs about mating decisions. Hence, such studies, and the derived conclusions, are only applicable to ecologically-irrelevant conditions and cannot be extrapolated to more natural laboratory or field conditions. Our concerns may be relevant to many behavioural studies quantifying sexual selection across taxa. This commentary adds to the increasing scientific awareness that: i) mating outcome is, across taxa, the result of a sexual conflict whose outcome is under female, and not male, control; ii) the social environment used to quantify mating success is of utmost importance to produce reliable estimates of the strength and the direction of sexual selection on sexually-selected traits, as they evolve in nature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 55%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Environmental Science 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,357,452
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#439
of 655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,931
of 326,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.