↓ Skip to main content

Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the "nutritional stress hypothesis"

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
411 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
462 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the "nutritional stress hypothesis"
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2002
DOI 10.1007/s00359-002-0361-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Nowicki, W. Searcy, S. Peters

Abstract

The nutritional stress hypothesis explains how learned features of song, such as complexity and local dialect structure, can serve as indicators of male quality of interest to females in mate choice. The link between song and quality comes about because the brain structures underlying song learning largely develop during the first few months post-hatching. During this same period, songbirds are likely to be subject to nutritional and other stresses. Only individuals faring well in the face of stress are able to invest the resources in brain development necessary to optimize song learning. Learned features of song thus become reliable indicators of male quality, with reliability maintained by the developmental costs of song. We review the background and assumptions of the nutritional stress hypothesis, and present new experimental data demonstrating an effect of nestling nutrition on nestling growth, brain development, and song learning, providing support for a key prediction of the hypothesis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 462 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Canada 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Puerto Rico 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Unknown 443 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 129 28%
Student > Master 67 15%
Student > Bachelor 60 13%
Researcher 57 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 71 15%
Unknown 53 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 288 62%
Environmental Science 31 7%
Psychology 24 5%
Neuroscience 22 5%
Linguistics 5 1%
Other 20 4%
Unknown 72 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,319,557
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#128
of 1,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,559
of 50,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 50,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them