↓ Skip to main content

Mutual Mate Choice: When it Pays Both Sexes to Avoid Inbreeding

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2008
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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.
Title
Mutual Mate Choice: When it Pays Both Sexes to Avoid Inbreeding
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0003365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathieu Lihoreau, Cédric Zimmer, Colette Rivault

Abstract

Theoretical models of sexual selection predict that both males and females of many species should benefit by selecting their mating partners. However, empirical evidence testing and validating this prediction is scarce. In particular, whereas inbreeding avoidance is expected to induce sexual conflicts, in some cases both partners could benefit by acting in concert and exerting mutual mate choice for non-assortative pairings. We tested this prediction with the gregarious cockroach Blattella germanica (L.). We demonstrated that males and females base their mate choice on different criteria and that choice occurs at different steps during the mating sequence. Males assess their relatedness to females through antennal contacts before deciding to court preferentially non-siblings. Conversely, females biased their choice towards the most vigorously courting males that happened to be non-siblings. This study is the first to demonstrate mutual mate choice leading to close inbreeding avoidance. The fact that outbred pairs were more fertile than inbred pairs strongly supports the adaptive value of this mating system, which includes no "best phenotype" as the quality of two mating partners is primarily linked to their relatedness. We discuss the implications of our results in the light of inbreeding conflict models.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Czechia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 92 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 26%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 69%
Psychology 6 6%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 7 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 March 2009.
All research outputs
#3,409,962
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#44,865
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,733
of 91,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#106
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 91,212 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 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 73% of its contemporaries.