↓ Skip to main content

Causes and consequences of variation in offspring body mass: meta‐analyses in birds and mammals

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Causes and consequences of variation in offspring body mass: meta‐analyses in birds and mammals
Published in
Biological Reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1111/brv.12329
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Early survival is highly variable and strongly influences observed population growth rates in most vertebrate populations. One of the major potential drivers of survival variation among juveniles is body mass. Heavy juveniles are better fed and have greater body reserves, and are thus assumed to survive better than light individuals. In spite of this, some studies have failed to detect an influence of body mass on offspring survival, questioning whether offspring body mass does indeed consistently influence juvenile survival, or whether this occurs in particular species/environments. Furthermore, the causes for variation in offspring mass are poorly understood, although maternal mass has often been reported to play a crucial role. To understand why offspring differ in body mass, and how this influences juvenile survival, we performed phylogenetically corrected meta-analyses of both the relationship between offspring body mass and offspring survival in birds and mammals and the relationship between maternal mass and offspring mass in mammals. We found strong support for an overall positive effect of offspring body mass on survival, with a more pronounced influence in mammals than in birds. An increase of one standard deviation of body mass increased the odds of offspring survival by 71% in mammals and by 44% in birds. A cost of being too fat in birds in terms of flight performance might explain why body mass is a less reliable predictor of offspring survival in birds. We then looked for moderators explaining the among-study differences reported in the intensity of this relationship. Surprisingly, sex did not influence the intensity of the offspring mass-survival relationship and phylogeny only accounted for a small proportion of observed variation in the intensity of that relationship. Among the potential factors that might affect the relationship between mass and survival in juveniles, only environmental conditions was influential in mammals. Offspring survival was most strongly influenced by body mass in captive populations and wild populations in the absence of predation. We also found support for the expected positive effect of maternal mass on offspring mass in mammals (rpearson  = 0.387). As body mass is a strong predictor of early survival, we expected heavier mothers to allocate more to their offspring, leading them to be heavier and so to have a higher survival. However, none of the potential factors we tested for variation in the maternal mass-offspring mass relationship had a detectable influence. Further studies should focus on linking these two relationships to determine whether a strong effect of offspring size on early survival is associated with a high correlation coefficient between maternal mass and offspring mass.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 200 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 26%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 48 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 102 50%
Environmental Science 27 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Social Sciences 2 <1%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 61 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,799,743
of 29,430,452 outputs
Outputs from Biological Reviews
#1,523
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,014
of 334,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Reviews
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,430,452 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 334,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.