ReviewEcology and evolution2024
Bat mating systems-A review and recategorisation.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interacting effects of sex and age on immune responses in a polygynous bat with male-biased mortality.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Do greater spear-nosed bats have societies?Animal behaviour · 2025Article
- Sex differences in DNA methylation in bats.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- Strategies, costs and counter-strategies to sexual coercion.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Mating system and copulatory behavior of the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis).Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- In-situ responses of temperate-zone bats to climate change.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- Bat mating systems-A review and recategorisation.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mating systems, influenced by the social and ecological environment and individual attributes, are fundamental components of animal social organisation, impacting behaviour, animal distribution, ecosystem processes, individual reproductive success, and population dynamics. Bats are of particular interest for studies of mating systems as they are thought to exhibit a greater diversity in mating systems than any other mammalian order, and thus make great models for improving our fundamental understanding of causes and consequences of social organisation. Here, we review the current knowledge of bat mating systems. Our analyses show that research on bat mating systems has not kept pace with research on bats in general and that traditional typologies do not accommodate the mating system of several species. Therefore, we propose an alternative, functional framework to categorise mating systems of bats and by extension of other taxa. We argue that mating systems can be classified according to a male reproductive skew continuum, with an increasing skew from monogamy to true lekking. We include an additional category of lek-like mating system along the continuum to account for previous trans-categorical cases that have the appearance of resource defence but are functionally akin to a lek. The new framework has a total of seven categories: promiscuity, monogamy, female defence polygyny, resource defence polygyny, a lek-like mating system, exploded classical lek, and clustered classical lek. Applying this framework to bats reveals that lek mating systems are more prevalent in bats than previously recognised. It is our aim that this review and the proposed framework provide a greater understanding of bat mating systems particularly and provoke research into the factors that shape mating systems across animal taxa more generally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.