Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29641529›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Variation in social systems within Chaetodon butterflyfishes, with special reference to pair bonding.

Jessica P Nowicki, Lauren A O'Connell, Peter F Cowman, Stefan P W Walker, Darren J Coker, Morgan S Pratchett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Jessica P NowickiAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6373-8761
Lauren A O'ConnellDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Peter F CowmanAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Stefan P W WalkerAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Darren J CokerAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Morgan S PratchettAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Australian Research Council · AUStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many animals, affiliative relationships such as pair bonds form the foundation of society and are highly adaptive. Animal systems amenable for comparatively studying pair bonding are important for identifying underlying biological mechanisms, but mostly exist in mammals. Better establishing fish systems will enable comparison of pair bonding mechanisms across taxonomically distant lineages that may reveal general underlying mechanistic principles. We examined the utility of wild butterflyfishes (f: Chaetodontidae; g: Chaetodon) for comparatively studying pair bonding. Using stochastic character mapping, we provide the first analysis of the evolutionary history of butterflyfish sociality, revealing that pairing is ancestral, with at least seven independent transitions to gregarious grouping and solitary behavior since the late Miocene. We then formally verified social systems in six sympatric and wide-spread species representing a clade with one ancestrally reconstructed transition from paired to solitary grouping at Lizard Island, Australia. In situ observations of the size, selective affiliation and aggression, fidelity, and sex composition of social groups confirmed that Chaetodon baronessa, C. lunulatus, and C. vagabundus are predominantly pair bonding, whereas C. rainfordi, C. plebeius, and C. trifascialis are predominantly solitary. Even in the predominantly pair bonding species, C. lunulatus, a proportion of adults (15%) are solitary. Importantly, inter- and intra-specific differences in social systems do not co-vary with other previously established attributes, including parental care. Hence, the proposed butterflyfish populations are promising for inter- and intra-species comparative analyses of pair bonding and its mechanistic underpinnings. Avenues for further developing the system are proposed, including determining whether the aforementioned utility of these species applies across their geographic disruptions.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalPair BondAggressionAnimalsAustraliaBiological EvolutionFemaleGeographyMalePerciformesPhylogenySocial BehaviorSpecies SpecificityStochastic Processes

Identifiers

PMID29641529
PMCPMC5894994
OpenAlexW2796728901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.