Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21288948›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2011

Polyandrous females benefit by producing sons that achieve high reproductive success in a competitive environment.

Renée C Firman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Rapidly Evolving X-linkedbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Of mice and women: advances in mammalian sperm competition with a focus on the female perspective.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Why do female mice mate with multiple males?Behavioral ecology and sociobiology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Renée C FirmanCentre for Evolutionary Biology, School of Animal Biology (M092), University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6009, Australia. rcfirman@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Females of many taxa often copulate with multiple males and incite sperm competition. On the premise that males of high genetic quality are more successful in sperm competition, it has been suggested that females may benefit from polyandry by accruing 'good genes' for their offspring. Laboratory studies have shown that multiple mating can increase female fitness through enhanced embryo viability, and have exposed how polyandry influences the evolution of the ejaculate. However, such studies often do not allow for both female mate choice and male-male competition to operate simultaneously. Here, I took house mice (Mus domesticus) from selection lines that had been evolving with (polygamous) and without (monogamous) sperm competition for 16 generations and, by placing them in free-ranging enclosures for 11 weeks, forced them to compete for access to resources and mates. Parentage analyses revealed that female reproductive success was not influenced by selection history, but there was a significant paternity bias towards males from the polygamous selection lines. Therefore, I show that female house mice benefit from polyandry by producing sons that achieve increased fitness in a semi-natural environment.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCompetitive BehaviorMarriageReproductionSexual Behavior, AnimalSpermatozoaAnimalsFemaleMaleMating Preference, AnimalMice

Identifiers

PMID21288948
PMCPMC3145191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.