Literature DB >> 26085130

The scale-of-choice effect and how estimates of assortative mating in the wild can be biased due to heterogeneous samples.

Emilio Rolán-Alvarez1,2, Antonio Carvajal-Rodríguez3, Alicia de Coo3, Beatriz Cortés3, Daniel Estévez3, Mar Ferreira3, Rubén González3, Adriana D Briscoe4.   

Abstract

The mode in which sexual organisms choose mates is a key evolutionary process, as it can have a profound impact on fitness and speciation. One way to study mate choice in the wild is by measuring trait correlation between mates. Positive assortative mating is inferred when individuals of a mating pair display traits that are more similar than those expected under random mating while negative assortative mating is the opposite. A recent review of 1134 trait correlations found that positive estimates of assortative mating were more frequent and larger in magnitude than negative estimates. Here, we describe the scale-of-choice effect (SCE), which occurs when mate choice exists at a smaller scale than that of the investigator's sampling, while simultaneously the trait is heterogeneously distributed at the true scale-of-choice. We demonstrate the SCE by Monte Carlo simulations and estimate it in two organisms showing positive (Littorina saxatilis) and negative (L. fabalis) assortative mating. Our results show that both positive and negative estimates are biased by the SCE by different magnitudes, typically toward positive values. Therefore, the low frequency of negative assortative mating observed in the literature may be due to the SCE's impact on correlation estimates, which demands new experimental evaluation.
© 2015 The Author(s). Evolution © 2015 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Correlation bias; mate choice; mating pairs; mating preference; negative assortative mating; positive assortative mating

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26085130     DOI: 10.1111/evo.12691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  9 in total

Review 1.  Why do we pick similar mates, or do we?

Authors:  Thomas M M Versluys; Ewan O Flintham; Alex Mas-Sandoval; Vincent Savolainen
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  A novel method for estimating the strength of positive mating preference by similarity in the wild.

Authors:  Mónica Fernández-Meirama; Daniel Estévez; Terence P T Ng; Gray A Williams; Antonio Carvajal-Rodríguez; Emilio Rolán-Alvarez
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.912

3.  Assortative mating by colored ornaments in blue tits: space and time matter.

Authors:  Amélie Fargevieille; Arnaud Grégoire; Anne Charmantier; Maria Del Rey Granado; Claire Doutrelant
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-02-26       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds.

Authors:  Daiping Wang; Wolfgang Forstmeier; Mihai Valcu; Niels J Dingemanse; Martin Bulla; Christiaan Both; Renée A Duckworth; Lynna Marie Kiere; Patrik Karell; Tomáš Albrecht; Bart Kempenaers
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 8.029

5.  Simulations and directed acyclic graphs explained why assortative mating biases the prenatal negative control design.

Authors:  Paul Madley-Dowd; Dheeraj Rai; Stanley Zammit; Jon Heron
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Premating barriers in young sympatric snail species.

Authors:  Arina L Maltseva; Marina A Varfolomeeva; Arseniy A Lobov; Polina O Tikanova; Egor A Repkin; Irina Y Babkina; Marina Panova; Natalia A Mikhailova; Andrei I Granovitch
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A Simulation Study of the Ecological Speciation Conditions in the Galician Marine Snail Littorina saxatilis.

Authors:  M Fernández-Meirama; E Rolán-Alvarez; A Carvajal-Rodríguez
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  Estimation of the strength of mate preference from mated pairs observed in the wild.

Authors:  Erin Clancey; Timothy R Johnson; Luke J Harmon; Paul A Hohenlohe
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 4.171

9.  Lack of assortative mating might explain reduced phenotypic differentiation where two grasshopper species meet.

Authors:  Mary Morgan-Richards; Maurine Vilcot; Steven A Trewick
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2021-06-19       Impact factor: 2.516

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.