| Literature DB >> 28854191 |
Carolina Isabel Miño1, Elaine Dantas de Souza2, Emmanuel Moralez-Silva2, Talita Alvarenga Valdes2, Vera Lúcia Cortiço Corrêa Rodrigues3, Sílvia Nassif Del Lama2.
Abstract
Colonial waterbirds such as herons, egrets and spoonbills exhibit ecological characteristics that could have promoted the evolution of conspecific brood parasitism and extra-pair copulation. However, an adequate characterization of the genetic mating systems of this avian group has been hindered by the lack of samples of elusive candidate parents which precluded conducting conventional parentage allocation tests. Here, we investigate the genetic mating system of the invasive cattle egret using hematophagous insects contained in fake eggs to collect blood from incubating adults in a wild breeding colony. We tested a protocol with a previously unused Neotropical Triatominae, Panstrongylus megistus, obtained blood samples from males and females in 31 nests built on trees, drew blood from 89 nestlings at those nests, and genotyped all samples at 14 microsatellite loci, including six new species-specific loci. We comparatively addressed the performance of parentage allocation versus kinship classification of nestlings to infer the genetic mating system of cattle egrets. In line with previous behavioral observations, we found evidence in support of a non-monogamous genetic mating system, including extra-pair paternity (EPP) and conspecific brood parasitism (CBP). Parentage allocation tests detected a higher percentage of nests with alternative reproductive tactics (EPP: 61.7%; CBP: 64.5%) than the kinship classification method (EPP: 50.0%; CBP: 43.3%). Overall, these results indicate that rates of alternative reproductive tactics inferred in the absence of parental genetic information could be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. This study highlights the importance of incorporating samples from candidate parents to adequately determine the genetic mating system of a species. We expand knowledge on the reproductive tactics of colonial waterbirds, contributing novel data on the genetic mating system of the cattle egret, valuable for the design of management strategies for this invasive bird.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28854191 PMCID: PMC5576647 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Fake eggs and hematophagous insects used for blood collection of incubating cattle egret adults.
Photograph showing: (A) Side view of fiberglass egg mimicking cattle egret egg (approximate dimensions: 45 mm length, 33 mm width) with holes through which the insect projects its proboscis; (B) Interior view of two halves of egg, which are attached with nut and bolt; (C) Fifth instar Panstrongylus megistus larva being removed from a fake-egg after having fed on an incubating cattle egret. Note the insect's engorged abdomen.
Summary of diversity statistics and power of set of markers used for relatedness analyses in cattle egret.
Number of alleles (Na), observed heterozygosity (Ho), unbiased expected heterozygosity (uHe), Fixation Index (F), probability values of tests for deviation from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (PHWE), probability of excluding a parent-pair (P), probability of identity between siblings (P) [54]. Multilocus estimates (± standard errors) are given in last row. Parameters were estimated using sample of unrelated females (n = 31) and males (n = 31).
| 4 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 3.8E-01 | 3.0E-01 | |
| 4 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 2.2E-01 | 5.8E-01 | |
| 3 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.06 | 0.92 | 3.5E-01 | 3.3E-01 | |
| 3 | 0.22 | 0.20 | -0.11 | 0.81 | 1.7E-01 | 6.6E-01 | |
| 7 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.02 | 1.00 | 6.0E-01 | 1.7E-01 | |
| 6 | 0.81 | 0.78 | -0.04 | 0.28 | 7.5E-01 | 8.3E-02 | |
| 10 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.03 | 0.37 | 7.6E-01 | 8.3E-02 | |
| 7 | 0.69 | 0.64 | -0.08 | 0.64 | 6.1E-01 | 1.7E-01 | |
| 7 | 0.80 | 0.75 | -0.08 | 0.88 | 7.0E-01 | 1.1E-01 | |
| 4 | 0.72 | 0.64 | -0.14 | 0.15 | 5.7E-01 | 1.8E-01 | |
| 5 | 0.70 | 0.59 | -0.20 | 0.36 | 5.0E-01 | 2.3E-01 | |
| 5.45 ± 0.65 | 0.60 ± 0.06 | 0.57 | - | 0.99 | 0.00064 |
Fig 2Proportion of inferred genetic mating system in cattle egret nests and nestling-dyads.
(A) Number of nests showing genetic evidence of monogamy, extra-pair paternity (EPP), conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) or of both behaviors, as inferred by application of the parentage allocation procedure or the multiple methods approach; (B) Number of nestling-dyads inferred to be product of monogamy, EPP or CBP by both methods.
Inferred genetic mating system of the cattle egret.
Inferences drew using the parental allocation approach with samples from incubating adults or the multiple methods’ approach in absence of parental information. Inferred genetic mating system (i. e., monogamy, CBP: conspecific brood parasitism, or EPP: extra-pair paternity) refers to whole nests rather than dyads. Symbol ‘/’ indicates that both behaviors were detected in nest. ‘Not inferred’ (nest #16) indicates that the multiple methods approach could not reach a final diagnosis for the full brood. Detailed results of parentage and kinship analyses for all nests are given in Tables C and D in S1 File, respectively.
| Inferred genetic mating system | ||
|---|---|---|
| Nests # | Parental allocation | Multiple methods |
| Monogamy | Monogamy | |
| CBP / EPP | CBP / EPP | |
| EPP | EPP | |
| EPP | Monogamy | |
| CBP | Monogamy | |
| CBP / EPP | CBP | |
| CBP | EPP | |
| EPP | Not inferred | |
| CBP / EPP | Monogamy | |
| Monogamy | CBP / EPP | |
Rates of alternative reproductive tactics inferred in wild waterbirds.
Percentages of nests with evidence of extra-pair paternity (EPP) or conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) inferred in waterbirds studied to date with molecular tools. Inferences were made either by applying the parental allocation approach [57] or the multiple methods approach in the absence of parental information [11].
| Species | Parental allocation | Multiple methods | Source | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPP % | CBP % | EPP % | CBP % | ||
| Roseate spoonbill | - | - | 5.0% | 24.0% | 11 |
| Wood stork | - | - | - | 70.0% | 11 |
| White-faced ibis | - | - | 1.2% | 13.7% | 13 |
| Jabiru stork | 7.7% | - | 7.1% | - | 14 |
| Great cormorant | - | - | 30.0% | - | 16 |
| White stork | - | - | 13.1% | - | 17 |
| Cattle egret | 61.3% | 64.5% | 50% | 43.3% | This study |