Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37830023›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Drop dead! Female mate avoidance in an explosively breeding frog.

Carolin Dittrich, Mark-Oliver Rödel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. 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
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Strategies, costs and counter-strategies to sexual coercion.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Carolin DittrichMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115 Berlin, Deutschland.ORCID 0000-0002-4447-4481
Mark-Oliver RödelMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115 Berlin, Deutschland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1666-195X
Museum für Naturkunde · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Males' and females' reproductive strategies may differ, potentially leading to sexual conflict. Increased efforts by males (harassment, forced copulation, intimidation) to gain access to females could even negatively affect female survival and thus lead to reproductive failure for both individuals. In anurans, a higher mortality risk of mating females has been reported in explosive breeding species. During these mating events, several males cling to a female, which are mostly unable to get rid of the unwanted males. This can lead to the female's death. From the literature, it seems that females of explosive breeding frogs have no means to reject unwanted males. Here we describe female mate avoidance behaviours in the European common frog. We observed three female avoidance behaviours, namely 'rotation', 'release call(s)' and tonic immobility (death feigning). These behaviours were significantly associated with smaller female body size, and smaller females were more successful in escaping amplexus. Tonic immobility as a tactic to avoid mating or male harassment has only been observed in a handful of species and only in one other amphibian. Our observations show that females in explosive breeding frogs may not be as passive and helpless as previously thought.

Indexed as

death feigningEuropean common frogexperiencesexual conflictthanatosistonic immobility

Identifiers

PMID37830023
PMCPMC10565404
OpenAlexW4387532474

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.