Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29884214›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2018

Male size, not female preferences influence female reproductive success in a poeciliid fish (Poecilia latipinna): a combined behavioural/genetic approach.

Ulrike Scherer, Ralph Tiedemann, Ingo Schlupp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ulrike SchererUnit of Evolutionary Biology/Systematic Zoology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany.
Ralph TiedemannUnit of Evolutionary Biology/Systematic Zoology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany. tiedeman@uni-potsdam.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2604-6336
Ingo SchluppDepartment of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, 730 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Oklahoma · USUniversity of Potsdam · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe 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.

resultsAlthough 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.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalBody SizeSex CharacteristicsAnimalsFemaleMalePoeciliaReproductionSexual Behavior, AnimalFitnessLife historyMate choiceMicrosatellite analysisOffspring weightPaternity analysisSailfin mollySexual selection

Identifiers

PMID29884214
PMCPMC5994011
OpenAlexW2807263547

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.