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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Male size, not female preferences influence female reproductive success in a poeciliid fish (Poecilia latipinna): a combined behavioural/genetic approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3487-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrike Scherer, Ralph Tiedemann, Ingo Schlupp |
| Abstract |
We investigated the potential role of indirect benefits for female mate preferences in a highly promiscuous species of live-bearing fishes, the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna using an integrative approach that combines methods from animal behavior, life-history evolution, and genetics. Males of this species solely contribute sperm for reproduction, and consequently females do not receive any direct benefits. Despite this, females typically show clear mate preferences. It has been suggested that females can increase their reproductive success through indirect benefits from choosing males of higher quality. Although preferences for large body size have been recorded as an honest signal for genetic quality, this particular study resulted in female preference being unaffected by male body size. Nonetheless, larger males did sire more offspring, but with no effect on offspring quality. This study presents a methodical innovation by combining preference testing with life history measurements-such as the determination of the dry weight of fish embryos-and paternity analyses on single fish embryos. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 64% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
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 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,859,387
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,677
of 4,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,610
of 331,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#37
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 4,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. 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 331,047 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 129 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.