ArticleNature2010
Evidence for male allocation in pipefish?
Article in Nature, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sexual differences in the extent and type of parental care lie at the heart of sexual selection theory, and evolution resulting from parental conflict has produced some striking behavioural and morphological adaptations. In a study of male pregnancy in Gulf pipefish, Paczolt and Jones showed that more eggs were transferred to the male's brood pouch and more offspring survived following mating with large females (preferred by males) than with small (less preferred) females. Although the authors conclude that the lower survival of embryos from small females is most consistent with males actively removing resources from these offspring, no data are presented to directly support this hypothesis (ref. 2, and Supplementary Information therein) and the data do not refute the alternative explanation that differential egg survival is caused by female effects mediated by variation in fecundity and egg size or quality. We argue that only by experimentally manipulating female attractiveness separately from the quality of eggs deposited in the brood pouch can the extent of sexual conflict in this role-reversed system be assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.