↓ Skip to main content

Hoopoe males experience intra-seasonal while females experience inter-seasonal reproductive costs

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Hoopoe males experience intra-seasonal while females experience inter-seasonal reproductive costs
Published in
Oecologia, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-4028-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Floriane Plard, Raphaël Arlettaz, Michael Schaub

Abstract

Reproductive and survival costs due to reproductive investment are a central element for the evolution of life histories. Both intra- (reduction of reproductive performance of second brood due to investment in first brood) and inter-seasonal costs (reduction of reproductive performance or annual survival due to reproductive investment in preceding year) may appear in multiple breeding species. Knowledge about how trade-offs within and between seasons shape individual trajectories and influence fitness are crucial in life-history evolution, yet intra- and inter-seasonal reproductive costs are rarely analysed simultaneously. We investigated sex-specific differences in intra- and inter-seasonal reproductive and survival costs in response to previous reproductive effort in a monogamous, double-brooding bird, the hoopoe (Upupa epops), accounting for heterogeneity in individual and annual quality. Intra-seasonal reproductive costs were detected in males and inter-seasonal reproductive and survival costs were detected in females. In males, the probability of being a successful double breeder was negatively correlated with the number of hatchlings produced in the first brood. In females, the number of fledglings raised in the first brood was negatively correlated with the reproductive effort in the preceding season. Female annual survival was also negatively influenced by the number of broods produced in the previous reproductive season. Most of these reproductive costs were detected only in years with low productivity, suggesting that costs become evident when environmental conditions are harsh. Our results illustrate how different investment in current vs. future reproduction and survival shape different life-history strategies in males and females of a monogamous bird species.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 71%
Unspecified 3 21%
Environmental Science 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,810,485
of 12,960,324 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,765
of 3,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,277
of 383,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#38
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,960,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 383,304 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.