↓ Skip to main content

Long-term monitoring reveals invariant clutch size and unequal reproductive costs between sexes in a subtropical lacertid lizard

Overview of attention for article published in Zoological Letters, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Long-term monitoring reveals invariant clutch size and unequal reproductive costs between sexes in a subtropical lacertid lizard
Published in
Zoological Letters, January 2020
DOI 10.1186/s40851-019-0152-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jhan-Wei Lin, Ying-Rong Chen, Tsui-Wen Li, Pei-Jen L. Shaner, Si-Min Lin

Abstract

Based on 20,000 records representing c. 11,000 individuals from an 8-year capture-mark-recapture (CMR) study, we tested and confirmed a new case of invariant clutch size (ICS) in a sexually dichromatic lacertid lizard, Takydromus viridipunctatus. In the grassland habitat of the early succession stage, females showed strictly low and invariant clutch size, multiple clutches in a breeding season, high reproductive potential, and annual breeding cycles that correspond to the emergence of male courtship coloration. The hatchlings mature quickly, and join the adult cohort for breeding within a few months, whereas adults show low survival rates and a short lifespan, such that most die within one year. Mortality increased in both sexes during the breeding season, especially in females, indicating an unequal cost of reproduction in survival. These life history characters may be explained by two non-exclusive hypotheses of ICS-arboreal hypothesis and predation hypothesis-within the ecological context of their habitat. Our study highlights a confirmed case of ICS, which adapts well to this r-selected grassland habitat that experiences seasonal fluctuation and frequent disturbance.

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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 100%

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 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#8,728,620
of 15,848,357 outputs
Outputs from Zoological Letters
#85
of 135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,712
of 358,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zoological Letters
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,848,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 358,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.