ArticleScientific reports2020
Mutual mate choice and its benefits for both sexes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linear morphometrics fail to support strong sexual dimorphism in Uintatherium anceps.PloS one · 2026Article
- No Evidence That the Phoretic MiteEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- High rates of male courtship in a female-ornamented pipefish.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mating interactions, it is common in nature for both sexes to choose simultaneously. However, this mutual mate choice and its consequences for progeny has received relatively little study; an approach where both male and female condition is manipulated is thus desirable. We compared both sexes' preferences in Tenebrio molitor beetles when individual condition varied (healthy vs infected with a fungus), and observed the direct benefits of those preferences. We predicted that: (a) females and males in good condition would prefer high quality mates; (b) preferences would be weaker when the choosing individual is in poor condition (and thus less selective given, for example, time and energetic constrains); and, (c) high quality mates would lay a larger number of total eggs and/or viable eggs than low quality mates. We found that both males and females in good condition were not more likely to choose mates that were also in good condition. However, poor-condition animals were more likely to prefer similar quality animals, while high-condition animals did not necessarily prefer mates of similar condition. Choosing sick males or females had a negative impact on egg number and viability. Our results suggest a non-adaptive mate choice in this species. Possibly, a deteriorated condition may drive individuals to invest more in attracting mates, because their chances of surviving the infection are very low. However, we do not discount the possibility that the fungus is manipulating individuals to increase its transmission during mating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.