Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38955230›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Sexually antagonistic coevolution of the male nuptial gift and female feeding behaviour in decorated crickets.

Samuel Burns-Dunn, Tassie Mortys, Clarissa M House, Christopher Mitchell, Kristin R Duffield, Bert Foquet, Ben M Sadd, Scott K Sakaluk, John Hunt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Samuel Burns-DunnSchool of Science, Western Sydney University, Hawkesbury Campus, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8959-6781
Tassie MortysSchool of Science, Western Sydney University, Hawkesbury Campus, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-2354-889X
Clarissa M HouseSchool of Science, Western Sydney University, Hawkesbury Campus, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1125-6354
Christopher MitchellCentre for Ecology & Conservation, School of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6842-4788
Kristin R DuffieldCrop BioProtection Research Unit, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, National Centre for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4359-4921
Bert FoquetSchool of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4120, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1643-6522
Ben M SaddSchool of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4120, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3136-5144
Scott K SakalukSchool of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4120, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2878-1438
John HuntSchool of Science, Western Sydney University, Hawkesbury Campus, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4962-8750

Funding

Australian Research Council DP180101708National Science Foundation IOS 16-54028U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of nuptial gifts has traditionally been considered a harmonious affair, providing benefits to both mating partners. There is growing evidence, however, that receiving a nuptial gift can be actively detrimental to the female. In decorated crickets (

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorGryllidaeSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsBiological CoevolutionBiological EvolutionFemaleMaleSex Ratioexperimental evolutionfree amino acidsinterlocus sexual conflictnuptial giftspermatophylax

Identifiers

PMID38955230
PMCPMC11285378

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.