↓ Skip to main content

Postnatal nutrition influences male attractiveness and promotes plasticity in male mating preferences

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Postnatal nutrition influences male attractiveness and promotes plasticity in male mating preferences
Published in
The Science of Nature, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00114-017-1524-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

José C. Noguera, Neil B. Metcalfe, Pat Monaghan

Abstract

Poor early-life nutrition could reduce adult reproductive success by negatively affecting traits linked to sexual attractiveness such as song complexity. If so, this might favor strategic mate choice, allowing males with less complex songs to tailor their mating tactics to maximize the reproductive benefits. However, this possibility has been ignored in theoretical and empirical studies. By manipulating the micronutrient content of the diet (e.g., low or high) during the postnatal period of male zebra finches, we show for the first time (1) that males reared on a poor (low) micronutrient diet had less complex songs as adults; (2) that these males, in contrast to the high micronutrient diet group, were more selective in their mating strategies, discriminating against those females most likely to reduce their clutch size when paired with males having less complex songs; and (3) that by following different mating strategies, males reared on the contrasting diets obtained similar reproductive benefits. These results suggest that early-life dietary conditions can induce multiple and long-lasting effects on male and female reproductive traits. Moreover, the results seem to reflect a previously unreported case of adaptive plasticity in mate choice in response to a nutritionally mediated reduction in sexual attractiveness.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 45%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#21,866,582
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#2,113
of 2,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,408
of 329,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.