Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28289773›Full record

ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2017

Temporal variation in size-assortative mating and male mate choice in a spider with amphisexual care.

Rafael R Moura, Marcelo O Gonzaga

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Rafael R MouraPos-graduacao em Ecologia e Conservaçao de Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Campus Umuarama, Bloco 2D, Uberlandia, MG, CEP 38400-902, Brazil. biorafaelrm@gmail.com.
Marcelo O GonzagaInstituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlandia, Campus Umuarama, Bloco 2D, Uberlandia, MG, CEP 38400-902, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Males should be more selective when they have a high investment in reproduction, especially in species with biparental or paternal care. In this context, male mate choice can promote size-assortative mating (SAM) when (1) large males win intrasexual disputes, (2) large females are more fecund, and (3) males prefer larger females to smaller ones. In the spider Manogea porracea, males exhibit high reproductive investment by building their webs above those of females and exhibiting extended care of offspring in the absence of females. Under these circumstances, we expect the occurrence of SAM and male preference for large females. Herein, we performed observations and experiments in the field to evaluate the hypotheses that (1) M. porracea mates assortatively by size and (2) SAM is influenced by male mate choice. Furthermore, we measured variables that could affect mating patterns, the sex ratios, and densities of both sexes. Pairing in M. porracea was positively size-assortative in 2012, but not in 2013. Large males won most disputes for mates and preferred larger females, which produced more eggs. The inconsistency in detection of SAM was due to population dynamics, namely variations in sex ratio and population density across the breeding season. Furthermore, we found that the significance of male mate choice on sexual selection of body size in M. porracea strongly depends on the competition intensity for mating opportunities. The traditional sexual selection hypothesis of SAM needs to be reviewed and must include measures of competition intensity.

Indexed as

AnimalsBody SizeCompetitive BehaviorFemaleFertilityMaleMating Preference, AnimalPopulation DensitySex RatioSpidersTime FactorsFemale fecundityIntrasexual disputesMale preferenceOSRSize-assortative pairing

Identifiers

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.