Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34188812›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2021

Female differential allocation in response to extrapair offspring and social mate attractiveness.

Kerianne M Wilson, Nancy Tyler Burley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 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
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kerianne M WilsonDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California Irvine CA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6356-1898
Nancy Tyler BurleyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California Irvine CA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-7583
University of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, Riverside · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Renewed debate over what benefits females might gain from producing extra-pair offspring emphasizes the possibility that apparent differences in quality between within-pair and extra-pair offspring are confounded by greater maternal investment in extra-pair offspring. Moreover, the attractiveness of a female's social mate can also influence contributions of both partners to a reproductive attempt. Here, we explore the complexities involved in parental investment decisions in response to extra-pair offspring and mate attractiveness with a focus on the female point of view. Adult zebra finches paired and reproduced in a colony setting. A male's early-life diet quality and his extra-pair reproductive success were used as metrics of his mating attractiveness. Females paired with males that achieved extra-pair success laid heavier eggs than other females and spent less time attending their nests than their mates or other females. Extra-pair nestlings were fed more protein-rich hen's egg than within-pair nestlings. Females producing extra-pair offspring had more surviving sons than females producing only within-pair offspring. Collectively, results show that females differentially allocate resources in response to offspring extra-pair status and their social mate's attractiveness. Females may also obtain fitness benefits through the production of extra-pair offspring.

Indexed as

differential allocationextra‐pair offspringfemale extra‐pair reproductive successmale qualityparental investmentzebra finch

Identifiers

PMID34188812
PMCPMC8216983
OpenAlexW3164164523

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.