↓ Skip to main content

Males make poor meals: a comparison of nutrient extraction during sexual cannibalism and predation

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, December 2009
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Males make poor meals: a comparison of nutrient extraction during sexual cannibalism and predation
Published in
Oecologia, December 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00442-009-1518-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shawn M. Wilder, Ann L. Rypstra

Abstract

Cannibalism is hypothesized to have evolved as a way to obtain a high-quality meal. We examined the extraction of lipid and protein by female wolf spiders, Hogna helluo, during sexual cannibalism of males and predation of crickets. Most food-limited females did not cannibalize males but immediately consumed a size-matched cricket. When consuming male H. helluo and crickets, female H. helluo only consumed 51% of the male body while they consumed 72% of the cricket body. While males had higher protein content in their bodies than crickets and other insects, female H. helluo ingested similar amounts of protein from male H. helluo and crickets. Female H. helluo extracted 47% of the protein present in male H. helluo and 67% of the protein present in crickets. Females were able to extract nearly all of the lipid present in male H. helluo and crickets. However, crickets and other insects had almost 4 times higher lipid content than male H. helluo. The ratio of lipid to protein consumed from crickets appeared more similar to the nutritional requirements of egg production than that of males. Taken together, female hesitancy to engage in cannibalism, low extraction of nutrients from males and a low ratio of lipid to protein in the food extracted from males suggest that males may be poor-quality prey items compared to common insects such as crickets.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
Réunion 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
India 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 26%
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 74%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 04 June 2014.
All research outputs
#1,241,627
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#130
of 4,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,236
of 164,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 164,781 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.