↓ Skip to main content

No evidence for size‐assortative mating in the wild despite mutual mate choice in sex‐role‐reversed pipefishes

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, December 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
No evidence for size‐assortative mating in the wild despite mutual mate choice in sex‐role‐reversed pipefishes
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/ece3.907
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Size-assortative mating is a nonrandom association of body size between members of mating pairs and is expected to be common in species with mutual preferences for body size. In this study, we investigated whether there is direct evidence for size-assortative mating in two species of pipefishes, Syngnathus floridae and S. typhle, that share the characteristics of male pregnancy, sex-role reversal, and a polygynandrous mating system. We take advantage of microsatellite-based "genetic-capture" techniques to match wild-caught females with female genotypes reconstructed from broods of pregnant males and use these data to explore patterns of size-assortative mating in these species. We also develop a simulation model to explore how positive, negative, and antagonistic preferences of each sex for body size affect size-assortative mating. Contrary to expectations, we were unable to find any evidence of size-assortative mating in either species at different geographic locations or at different sampling times. Furthermore, two traits that potentially confer a fitness advantage in terms of reproductive success, female mating order and number of eggs transferred per female, do not affect pairing patterns in the wild. Results from model simulations demonstrate that strong mating preferences are unlikely to explain the observed patterns of mating in the studied populations. Our study shows that individual mating preferences, as ascertained by laboratory-based mating trials, can be decoupled from realized patterns of mating in the wild, and therefore, field studies are also necessary to determine actual patterns of mate choice in nature. We conclude that this disconnect between preferences and assortative mating is likely due to ecological constraints and multiple mating that may limit mate choice in natural populations.

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 6 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 37 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 %
United States 1 3%
Mexico 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Philosophy 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 30%
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 15 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,455,062
of 27,292,294 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#1,301
of 8,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,930
of 328,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#13
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,292,294 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 8,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 328,273 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.