Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33854539›Full record

ArticleCurrent zoology2021

Asymmetric reinforcement in

Michelle E St John, Rebecca C Fuller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current zoology, 2021. 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. Review
  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

2 authors.

Michelle E St JohnSchool of Integrative Biology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
Rebecca C FullerSchool of Integrative Biology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.

Funding

PAGES (Progressing through the Ages: Global climate change, Evolution, and Societal well-being)R25OD020203 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI HUG, BARBARA · 2016 to 2017
$523k
NIH HHS R25 OD020203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reinforcement can occur when maladaptive hybridization in sympatry favors the evolution of conspecific preferences and target traits that promote behavioral isolation (BI). In many systems, enhanced BI is due to increased female preference for conspecifics. In others, BI is driven by male preference, and in other systems both sexes exert preferences. Some of these patterns can be attributed to classic sex-specific costs and benefits of preference. Alternatively, sex differences in conspecific preference can emerge due to asymmetric postzygotic isolation (e.g., hybrid offspring from female A × male B have lower fitness than hybrid offspring from female B × male A), which can lead to asymmetric BI (e.g., female A and male B are less likely to mate than female B and male A). Understanding reinforcement requires understanding how conspecific preferences evolve in sympatry. Yet, estimating conspecific preferences can be difficult when both sexes are choosy. In this study, we use

Indexed as

asymmetric costs to hybridizationbehavioral isolationfemale mate choicemale mate choicereinforcement

Identifiers

PMID33854539
PMCPMC8026148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.