Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173125›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Mutual mate choice and its benefits for both sexes.

Alicia Reyes-Ramírez, Iván Antonio Sandoval-García, Maya Rocha-Ortega, Alex Córdoba-Aguilar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. No Evidence That the Phoretic MiteEcology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Alicia Reyes-RamírezDepartamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. P. 70-275, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, Coyoacán, Distrito Federal, Mexico.
Iván Antonio Sandoval-GarcíaDepartamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. P. 70-275, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, Coyoacán, Distrito Federal, Mexico.
Maya Rocha-OrtegaDepartamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. P. 70-275, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, Coyoacán, Distrito Federal, Mexico.
Alex Córdoba-AguilarDepartamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. P. 70-275, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, Coyoacán, Distrito Federal, Mexico. acordoba@iecologia.unam.mx.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Animal CommunicationAnimalsCourtshipFemaleHost-Pathogen InteractionsMaleMating Preference, AnimalMetarhiziumReproductionSexual Behavior, AnimalTenebrio

Identifiers

PMID33173125
PMCPMC7656247

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.