Literature DB >> 21438933

Female ground tits prefer relatives as extra-pair partners: driven by kin-selection?

Chen Wang1, Xin Lu.   

Abstract

Socially monogamous female birds routinely mate with males outside the pair bond. Three alternative hypotheses consider genetic benefits as the major driver behind the female strategy. The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis predicts that females paired with closely related males should seek copulations with distantly related extra-pair partners to avoid fitness loss from inbreeding depression; the outbreeding avoidance hypothesis predicts the opposite; the kin-selection hypothesis suggests that regardless of social mate relatedness, females should give related males extra-pair fertilization opportunities to gain inclusive fitness if the costs from inbreeding are minor. We test these hypotheses with a facultative cooperative breeder, the ground tit (Parus humilis). Social pairs of ground tits formed randomly with respect to genetic relatedness. In both bi-parental and cooperative groups, a female's engaging in extra-pair mating was independent of relatedness to her social mate; however, females preferred extra-pair sires to which they were more related than to their social mates. Moreover, females had higher relatedness with either their extra-group extra-pair sires in both bi-parental and cooperative groups, or within-group helper sires in cooperative groups, than expected by chance. When more than one potential extra-pair partner was available around a female's nest, she tended to select a relative. There was no indication of fitness reduction from extra-pair mating, which occurred at an intermediate level of inbreeding. These data support the kin-selection hypothesis, although there might be alternative nongenetic reasons associated with the extra-pair mating preference. Our finding offers a new explanation for why female birds pursue extra-pair mating. It also may broaden our understanding of the role of kin-selection in the evolution of cooperative society.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21438933     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05070.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  10 in total

1.  Why inclusive fitness can make it adaptive to produce less fit extra-pair offspring.

Authors:  Jussi Lehtonen; Hanna Kokko
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Cost, risk, and avoidance of inbreeding in a cooperatively breeding bird.

Authors:  Amy E Leedale; Michelle Simeoni; Stuart P Sharp; Jonathan P Green; Jon Slate; Robert F Lachlan; Elva J H Robinson; Ben J Hatchwell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  What happens after inbreeding avoidance? Inbreeding by rejected relatives and the inclusive fitness benefit of inbreeding avoidance.

Authors:  A Bradley Duthie; Jane M Reid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Quantifying inbreeding avoidance through extra-pair reproduction.

Authors:  Jane M Reid; Peter Arcese; Lukas F Keller; Ryan R Germain; A Bradley Duthie; Sylvain Losdat; Matthew E Wolak; Pirmin Nietlisbach
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 5.  Individual Genetic Heterogeneity.

Authors:  Mauno Vihinen
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-10       Impact factor: 4.141

6.  Re-mating across years and intralineage polygyny are associated with greater than expected levels of inbreeding in wild red deer.

Authors:  K V Stopher; D H Nussey; T H Clutton-Brock; F Guinness; A Morris; J M Pemberton
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 2.411

7.  Females tend to prefer genetically similar mates in an island population of house sparrows.

Authors:  Coraline Bichet; Dustin J Penn; Yoshan Moodley; Luc Dunoyer; Elise Cellier-Holzem; Marie Belvalette; Arnaud Grégoire; Stéphane Garnier; Gabriele Sorci
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.260

8.  When does female multiple mating evolve to adjust inbreeding? Effects of inbreeding depression, direct costs, mating constraints, and polyandry as a threshold trait.

Authors:  A Bradley Duthie; Greta Bocedi; Jane M Reid
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2016-08-21       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  Certainty of paternity in two coucal species with divergent sex roles: the devil takes the hindmost.

Authors:  Ignas Safari; Wolfgang Goymann
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  Inclusive fitness benefits mitigate costs of cuckoldry to socially paired males.

Authors:  Aneesh P H Bose; Jonathan M Henshaw; Holger Zimmermann; Karoline Fritzsche; Kristina M Sefc
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 7.431

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.