↓ Skip to main content

True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate?
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-157
Pubmed ID
Authors

David N Fisher, Rowan J Doff, Tom A R Price

Abstract

The rate of female remating can have important impacts on a species, from affecting conflict and cooperation within families, to population viability and gene flow. However, determining the level of polyandry in a species can be difficult, with information on the mating system of many species being based on a single experiment, or completely absent. Here we investigate the mating system of the fruit fly Drosophila subobscura. Reports from England, Spain and Canada suggest D. subobscura is entirely monandrous, with no females remating. However, work in Greece suggests that 23% of females remate. We examine the willingness of female D. subobscura to remate in the laboratory in a range of conditions, using flies from both Greece and England. We make a distinction between pseudopolyandry, where a female remates after an ineffective first mating that is incapable of fertilising her eggs, and true polyandry, where a female remates even though she has received suitable sperm from a previous mating.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 36%
Researcher 9 25%
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 81%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,636,705
of 15,448,191 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#947
of 2,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,245
of 159,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,448,191 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 159,701 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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