Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33043452›Full record

ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2020

Female-specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased.

Ivain Martinossi-Allibert, Johanna Liljestrand Rönn, Elina Immonen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Ivain Martinossi-AllibertDepartment of Organismal Biology/Systematics Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE-75236, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8332-8620
Johanna Liljestrand RönnDepartment of Ecology and Genetics/Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE-75236, Sweden.
Elina ImmonenDepartment of Ecology and Genetics/Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE-75236, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1121-6950

Funding

Carl Tryggers Stiftelse för Vetenskaplig Forskning CTS18:163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Competition for limiting resources and stress can magnify variance in fitness and therefore selection. But even in a common environment, the strength of selection can differ across the sexes, as their fitness is often limited by different factors. Indeed, most taxa show stronger selection in males, a bias often ascribed to intense competition for access to mating partners. This sex bias could reverberate on many aspects of evolution, from speed of adaptation to genome evolution. It is unclear, however, whether stronger opportunity for selection in males is a pattern robust to sex-specific stress or resource limitation. We test this in the model species Callosobruchus maculatus by comparing female and male opportunity for selection (i) with and without limitation of quality oviposition sites, and (ii) under delayed age at oviposition. Decreasing the abundance of the resource key to females or increasing their reproductive age was challenging, as shown by a reduction in mean fitness, but opportunity for selection remained stronger in males across all treatments, and even more so when oviposition sites were limiting. This suggests that males remain the more variable sex independent of context, and that the opportunity for selection through males is indirectly affected by female-specific resource limitation.

Indexed as

Genetic FitnessModels, BiologicalOvipositionSelection, GeneticSex CharacteristicsAnimalsColeopteraFemaleMaleLaboratory settingsopportunity for selectionsex biassex-specific selectionsexual dimorphismsexual selection

Identifiers

PMID33043452
PMCPMC7821317

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.