↓ Skip to main content

The consequences of sexual selection in well‐adapted and maladapted populations of bean beetles†

Overview of attention for article published in Evolution, January 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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.
Title
The consequences of sexual selection in well‐adapted and maladapted populations of bean beetles†
Published in
Evolution, January 2018
DOI 10.1111/evo.13412
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivain Martinossi‐Allibert, Uroš Savković, Mirko Đorđević, Göran Arnqvist, Biljana Stojković, David Berger

Abstract

Whether sexual selection generally promotes or impedes population persistence remains an open question. Intralocus sexual conflict (IaSC) can render sexual selection in males detrimental to the population by increasing the frequency of alleles with positive effects on male reproductive success but negative effects on female fecundity. Recent modelling based on fitness landscape theory, however, indicates that the relative impact of IaSC may be reduced in maladapted populations and that sexual selection therefore might promote adaptation when it is most needed. Here, we test this prediction using bean beetles that had undergone 80 generations of experimental evolution on two alternative host plants. We isolated and assessed the effect of maladaptation on sex-specific strengths of selection and IaSC by cross-rearing the two experimental evolution regimes on the alternative hosts and estimating within-population genetic (co)variance for fitness in males and females. Two key predictions were upheld: males generally experienced stronger selection compared to females and maladaptation increased selection in females. However, maladaptation consistently decreased male-bias in the strength of selection and IaSC was not reduced in maladapted populations. These findings imply that sexual selection can be disrupted in stressful environmental conditions, thus reducing one of the potential benefits of sexual reproduction in maladapted populations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 32%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,128,928
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Evolution
#1,403
of 5,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,006
of 450,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution
#29
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 450,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.