Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding.


Journal

Nature ecology & evolution
ISSN: 2397-334X
Titre abrégé: Nat Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101698577

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2021
Historique:
received: 14 11 2020
accepted: 24 03 2021
pubmed: 5 5 2021
medline: 3 8 2021
entrez: 4 5 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Animals are usually expected to avoid mating with relatives (kin avoidance) as incestuous mating can lead to the expression of inbreeding depression. Yet, theoretical models predict that unbiased mating with regards to kinship should be common, and that under some conditions, the inclusive fitness benefits associated with inbreeding can even lead to a preference for mating with kin. This mismatch between empirical and theoretical expectations generates uncertainty as to the prevalence of inbreeding avoidance in animals. Here, we synthesized 677 effect sizes from 139 experimental studies of mate choice for kin versus non-kin in diploid animals, representing 40 years of research, using a meta-analytical approach. Our meta-analysis revealed little support for the widely held view that animals avoid mating with kin, despite clear evidence of publication bias. Instead, unbiased mating with regards to kinship appears widespread across animals and experimental conditions. The significance of a variety of moderators was explored using meta-regressions, revealing that the degree of relatedness and prior experience with kin explained some variation in the effect sizes. Yet, we found no difference in kin avoidance between males and females, choice and no-choice experiments, mated and virgin animals or between humans and animals. Our findings highlight the need to rethink the widely held view that inbreeding avoidance is a given in experimental studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33941905
doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01453-9
pii: 10.1038/s41559-021-01453-9
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

949-964

Références

Kokko, H. & Ots, I. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60, 467–475 (2006).
pubmed: 16637492
Blouin, S. F. & Blouin, M. Inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3, 230–233 (1988).
pubmed: 21227237 doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(88)90164-4
Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 201–206 (1996).
pubmed: 21237809 doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10028-8
Keller, L. & Waller, D. M. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 230–241 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02489-8
Szulkin, M., Stopher, K. V., Pemberton, J. M. & Reid, J. M. Inbreeding avoidance, tolerance, or preference in animals? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 205–211 (2013).
pubmed: 23182684 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.016
Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer Associates, 1998).
Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J. H. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 783–796 (2009).
pubmed: 19834483 doi: 10.1038/nrg2664
Parker, G. A. in Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (eds Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A.) 123–166 (Academic, 1979).
Duthie, A. B. & Reid, J. M. Evolution of inbreeding avoidance and inbreeding preference through mate choice among interacting relatives. Am. Nat. 188, 651–667 (2016).
pubmed: 27860505 doi: 10.1086/688919
Lehmann, L. & Perrin, N. Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am. Nat. 162, 638–652 (2003).
pubmed: 14618541 doi: 10.1086/378823
Kokko, H. Give one species the task to come up with a theory that spans them all: what good can come out of that? Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20171652 (2017).
pubmed: 29142112 pmcid: 5719169
Parker, G. A. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 361, 235–259 (2006).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1785
Ihle, M. & Forstmeier, W. Revisiting the evidence for inbreeding avoidance in zebra finches. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1356–1362 (2013).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/art074
Annavi, G. et al. Heterozygosity–fitness correlations in a wild mammal population: accounting for parental and environmental effects. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2594–2609 (2014).
pubmed: 25360289 pmcid: 4203301 doi: 10.1002/ece3.1112
Arct, A., Drobniak, S. M. & Cichoń, M. Genetic similarity between mates predicts extrapair paternity—a meta-analysis of bird studies. Behav. Ecol. 26, 959–968 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv004
Winternitz, J., Abbate, J. L., Huchard, E., Havlicek, J. & Garamszegi, L. Z. Patterns of MHC-dependent mate selection in humans and nonhuman primates: a meta-analysis. Mol. Ecol. 26, 668–688 (2017).
pubmed: 27859823 doi: 10.1111/mec.13920
Havlíček, J., Winternitz, J. & Roberts, S. C. Major histocompatibility complex-associated odour preferences and human mate choice: near and far horizons. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190260 (2020).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0260
Lizé, A., McKay, R. & Lewis, Z. Kin recognition in Drosophila: the importance of ecology and gut microbiota. ISME J. 8, 469–477 (2014).
pubmed: 24030598 doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.157
Heys, C. et al. Evidence that the microbiota counteracts male outbreeding strategy by inhibiting sexual signaling in females. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00029 (2018)
Ala-Honkola, O., Manier, M. K., Lupold, S. & Pitnick, S. No evidence for postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 65, 2699–2705 (2011).
pubmed: 21884066 doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01317.x
Mack, P. D., Hammock, B. A. & Promislow, D. E. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56, 1789–1795 (2002).
pubmed: 12389723
Loyau, A., Cornuau, J. H., Clobert, J. & Danchin, E. Incestuous sisters: mate preference for brothers over unrelated males in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 7, e51293 (2012).
pubmed: 23251487 pmcid: 3519633 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051293
Tan, C. K. W., Løvlie, H., Pizzari, T. & Wigby, S. No evidence for precopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 83, 1433–1441 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.015
Robinson, S. P., Kennington, W. J. & Simmons, L. W. Preference for related mates in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 84, 1169–1176 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.020
Ala-Honkola, O., Veltsos, P., Anderson, H. & Ritchie, M. G. Copulation duration, but not paternity share, potentially mediates inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila montana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 2013–2021 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-014-1807-7
Nakamura, S. Inbreeding and rotational breeding of the parasitoid fly, Exorista japonica (Diptera: Tachinidae), for successive rearing. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 31, 433–441 (1996).
doi: 10.1303/aez.31.433
Aluja, M., Rull, J., Perez-Staples, D., Diaz-Fleischer, F. & Sivinski, J. Random mating among Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) adults of geographically distant and ecologically distinct populations in Mexico. Bull. Entomol. Res. 99, 207–214 (2009).
pubmed: 19063753 doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006299
Fischer, K. et al. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in a butterfly. Ethology 121, 977–984 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/eth.12410
Mongue, A. J., Ahmed, M. Z., Tsai, M. V. & de Roode, J. C. Testing for cryptic female choice in monarch butterflies. Behav. Ecol. 26, 386–395 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru196
Haikola, S., Singer, M. C. & Pen, I. Has inbreeding depression led to avoidance of sib mating in the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia)? Evol. Ecol. 18, 113–120 (2004).
doi: 10.1023/B:EVEC.0000021062.97769.66
Välimäki, P., Kivelä, S. M. & Mäenpää, M. I. Mating with a kin decreases female remating interval: a possible example of inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 2037–2047 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1213-3
Lewis, Z. & Wedell, N. Male moths reduce sperm investment in relatives. Anim. Behav. 77, 1547–1550 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.013
Harano, T. & Katsuki, M. Female seed beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis, remate more readily after mating with relatives. Anim. Behav. 83, 1007–1010 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.022
Edvardsson, M., Rodríguez-Muñoz, R. & Tregenza, T. No evidence that female bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, use remating to reduce costs of inbreeding. Anim. Behav. 75, 1519–1524 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.005
Müller, T. & Müller, C. Consequences of mating with siblings and nonsiblings on the reproductive success in a leaf beetle. Ecol. Evol. 6, 3185–3197 (2016).
pubmed: 27103986 pmcid: 4829044 doi: 10.1002/ece3.2103
Kuriwada, T., Kumano, N., Shiromoto, K. & Haraguchi, D. Inbreeding avoidance or tolerance? Comparison of mating behavior between mass-reared and wild strains of the sweet potato weevil. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 1483–1489 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1158-6
Kuriwada, T., Kumano, N., Shiromoto, K. & Haraguchi, D. The effect of inbreeding on mating behaviour of West Indian sweet potato weevil Euscepes postfasciatus. Ethology 117, 822–828 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01937.x
Tyler, F. & Tregenza, T. Why do so many flour beetle copulations fail? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 146, 199–206 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2012.01292.x
Mattey, S. N., Smiseth, P. T. & Herberstein, M. No inbreeding avoidance by female burying beetles regardless of whether they encounter males simultaneously or sequentially. Ethology 121, 1031–1038 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/eth.12417
De Luca, P. A. & Cocroft, R. B. The effects of age and relatedness on mating patterns in thornbug treehoppers: inbreeding avoidance or inbreeding tolerance? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1869–1875 (2008).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-008-0616-2
Poderoso, J. C. M. et al. Mating preferences and consequences of choosing sibling or non-sibling mates by females of the predator Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Fla. Entomol. 96, 419–423 (2013).
doi: 10.1653/024.096.0259
Huang, M. H. & Caillaud, M. C. Inbreeding avoidance by recognition of close kin in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J. Insect Sci. 12, 39 (2012).
pubmed: 22954315 pmcid: 3471804 doi: 10.1673/031.012.3901
Stockley, P. Sperm selection and genetic incompatibility: does relatedness of mates affect male success in sperm competition? Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. Ser. B 266, 1663–1669 (1999).
doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0829
Weddle, C. B. et al. Cuticular hydrocarbons as a basis for chemosensory self-referencing in crickets: a potentially universal mechanism facilitating polyandry in insects. Ecol. Lett. 16, 346–353 (2013).
pubmed: 23279570 doi: 10.1111/ele.12046
Simmons, L. M. Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 41, 493–501 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80852-8
Bretman, A., Newcombe, D. & Tregenza, T. Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol. Ecol. 18, 3340–3345 (2009).
pubmed: 19694961 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04301.x
Bretman, A., Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. Molecular evidence of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 159–164 (2004).
pubmed: 15058392 pmcid: 1691572 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2563
Simmons, L. W. Kin recognition and its influence on mating preferences of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer). Anim. Behav. 38, 68–77 (1989).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80066-1
Simmons, L. W., Beveridge, M., Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3817–3824 (2006).
pubmed: 17032276 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03035.x
Simmons, L. W. & Thomas, M. L. No postcopulatory response to inbreeding by male crickets. Biol. Lett. 4, 183–185 (2008).
pubmed: 18211862 pmcid: 2429923 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0578
Tuni, C., Beveridge, M. & Simmons, L. W. Female crickets assess relatedness during mate guarding and bias storage of sperm towards unrelated males. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1261–1268 (2013).
pubmed: 23745826 doi: 10.1111/jeb.12118
Haneke-Reinders, M., Reinhold, K. & Schmoll, T. Sex-specific repeatabilities and effects of relatedness and mating status on copulation duration in an acridid grasshopper. Ecol. Evol. 7, 3414–3424 (2017).
pubmed: 28515877 pmcid: 5433977 doi: 10.1002/ece3.2937
Teng, Z. Q. & Kang, L. Egg-hatching benefits gained by polyandrous female locusts are not due to the fertilization advantage of nonsibling males. Evolution 61, 470–476 (2007).
pubmed: 17348955 doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00030.x
Bouchebti, S., Durier, V., Pasquaretta, C., Rivault, C. & Lihoreau, M. Subsocial cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea mate indiscriminately with kin despite high costs of inbreeding. PLoS ONE 11, e0162548 (2016).
pubmed: 27655156 pmcid: 5031396 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162548
Lihoreau, M. & Rivault, C. German cockroach males maximize their inclusive fitness by avoiding mating with kin. Anim. Behav. 80, 303–309 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.011
Lihoreau, M., Zimmer, C. & Rivault, C. Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav. Ecol. 18, 880–887 (2007).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm046
Lihoreau, M., Zimmer, C. & Rivault, C. Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PLoS ONE 3, e3365 (2008).
pubmed: 18843373 pmcid: 2557063 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003365
Hedlund, K., Ek, H., Gunnarsson, T. & Svegborn, C. Mate choice and male competition in Orchesella cincta (Collembola). Experientia 46, 524–526 (1990).
doi: 10.1007/BF01954254
Palmer, C. A. & Edmands, S. Mate choice in the face of both inbreeding and outbreeding depression in the intertidal copepod Tigriopus californicus. Mar. Biol. 136, 693–698 (2000).
doi: 10.1007/s002270050729
Winsor, G. L. & Innes, D. J. Sexual reproduction in Daphnia pulex (Crustacea: Cladocera): observations on male mating behaviour and avoidance of inbreeding. Freshwat. Biol. 47, 441–450 (2002).
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00817.x
Fortin, M., Vitet, C., Souty-Grosset, C. & Richard, F. J. How do familiarity and relatedness influence mate choice in Armadillidium vulgare? PLoS ONE 13, e0209893 (2018).
pubmed: 30596784 pmcid: 6312335 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209893
Tuni, C., Mestre, L., Berger-Tal, R., Lubin, Y. & Bilde, T. Mate choice in naturally inbred spiders: testing the role of relatedness. Anim. Behav. 157, 27–33 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.08.015
Ruch, J., Heinrich, L., Bilde, T. & Schneider, J. M. The evolution of social inbreeding mating systems in spiders: limited male mating dispersal and lack of pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in a subsocial predecessor. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98, 851–859 (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01322.x
Bilde, T., Lubin, Y., Smith, D., Schneider, J. M. & Maklakov, A. A. The transition to social inbred mating systems in spiders: role of inbreeding tolerance in a subsocial predecessor. Evolution 59, 160–174 (2005).
pubmed: 15792236
Welke, K. W. & Schneider, J. M. Males of the orb-web spider Argiope bruennichi sacrifice themselves to unrelated females. Biol. Lett. 6, 585–588 (2010).
pubmed: 20410027 pmcid: 2936157 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0214
Welke, K. & Schneider, J. M. Inbreeding avoidance through cryptic female choice in the cannibalistic orb-web spider Argiope lobata. Behav. Ecol. 20, 1056–1062 (2009).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp097
Chen, Z. et al. Inbreeding produces trade-offs between maternal fecundity and offspring survival in a monandrous spider. Anim. Behav. 132, 253–259 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.08.020
Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. Outbred embryos rescue inbred half-siblings in mixed-paternity broods of live-bearing females. Nature 439, 201–203 (2006).
pubmed: 16407952 doi: 10.1038/nature04260
McCarthy, T. M. & Sih, A. Relatedness of mates influences mating behaviour and reproductive success of the hermaphroditic freshwater snail Physa gyrina. Evol. Ecol. Res. 10, 77–94 (2008).
Facon, B., Ravigné, V. & Goudet, J. Experimental evidence of inbreeding avoidance in the hermaphroditic snail Physa acuta. Evol. Ecol. 20, 395–406 (2006).
doi: 10.1007/s10682-006-0009-9
Baur, B. & Baur, A. Random mating with respect to relatedness in the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum. Invertebr. Biol. 116, 294–298 (1997).
doi: 10.2307/3226861
Ng, T. P. T. & Johannesson, K. No precopulatory inbreeding avoidance in the intertidal snail Littorina saxatilis. J. Mollusca. Stud. 82, 213–215 (2015).
Burgess, S. C., Sander, L. & Bueno, M. How relatedness between mates influences reproductive success: an experimental analysis of self-fertilization and biparental inbreeding in a marine bryozoan. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11353–11366 (2019).
pubmed: 31641478 pmcid: 6802076 doi: 10.1002/ece3.5636
Peters, A. & Michiels, N. K. Evidence for lack of inbreeding avoidance by selective mating in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Invertebr. Biol. 115, 99–103 (1996).
doi: 10.2307/3227040
Boyd, S. K. & Blaustein, A. R. Familiarity and inbreeding avoidance in the gray-tailed vole (Microtus canicaudus). J. Mammal. 66, 348–352 (1985).
doi: 10.2307/1381247
Bollinger, E. K., Harper, S. J., Kramer, J. M. & Barrett, G. W. Avoidance of inbreeding in the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J. Mammal. 72, 419–421 (1991).
doi: 10.2307/1382117
Sun, P., Zhu, W. & Zhao, X. Opposite-sex sibling recognition in adult root vole, Microtus Oeconomus pallas: phenotype matching or association. Pol. J. Ecol. 56, 701–708 (2008).
Fadao, T., Ruyong, S. & Tingzheng, W. Does low fecundity reflect kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus)? Can. J. Zool. 80, 2150–2155 (2002).
doi: 10.1139/z02-202
Fadao, T., Tingzheng, W. & Yajun, Z. Inbreeding avoidance and mate choice in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus). Can. J. Zool. 78, 2119–2125 (2000).
doi: 10.1139/z00-149
Yu, X., Sun, R. & Fang, J. Effect of kinship on social behaviors in Brandt’s voles (Microtus brandti). J. Ethol. 22, 17–22 (2004).
doi: 10.1007/s10164-003-0097-8
Lucia, K. E. & Keane, B. A field test of the effects of familiarity and relatedness on social associations and reproduction in prairie voles. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 13–27 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1247-6
Gavish, L., Hofmann, J. E. & Getz, L. L. Sibling recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim. Behav. 32, 362–366 (1984).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80269-9
Ylӧnen, H. & Haapakoski, M. Risk of inbreeding: problem of mate choice and fitness effects? Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 62, 155–161 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/15659801.2015.1073452
Kruczek, M. & Golas, A. Behavioural development of conspecific odour preferences in bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus. Behav. Process. 64, 31–39 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00107-4
Lemaître, J.-F., Ramm, S. A., Hurst, J. L. & Stockley, P. Inbreeding avoidance behaviour of male bank voles in relation to social status. Anim. Behav. 83, 453–457 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.017
Kruczek, M. Recognition of kin in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Physiol. Behav. 90, 483–489 (2007).
pubmed: 17145068 doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.10.012
Rao, X., Zhang, J.-X., Liu, D. & Cong, L. Kinship alters the effects of forced cohabitation on body weight, mate choice and fitness in the rat-like hamster Tscheskia triton. Curr. Zool. 55, 41–47 (2009).
doi: 10.1093/czoolo/55.1.41
Mateo, J. M. & Johnston, R. E. Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 695–700 (2000).
pubmed: 10821615 pmcid: 1690595 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1058
Grau, H. J. Kin recognition in white-footed deermice (Peromyscus leucopus). Anim. Behav. 30, 497–505 (1982).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80062-6
Pillay, N. Father–daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mamm. Biol. 67, 212–218 (2002).
doi: 10.1078/1616-5047-00032
Pillay, N. & Rymer, T. L. Preference for outbreeding in inbred Littledale’s whistling rats Parotomys littledalei. Evol. Biol. 44, 21–30 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s11692-016-9383-6
Pillay, N. Inbreeding in Littledale’s whistling rat Parotomys littledalei. J. Exp. Zool. 293, 171–178 (2002).
pubmed: 12115911 doi: 10.1002/jez.10107
Firman, R. C. & Simmons, L. W. Polyandry facilitates postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Evolution 62, 603–611 (2008).
pubmed: 18081715 doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00307.x
Firman, R. C. & Simmons, L. W. Gametic interactions promote inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Ecol. Lett. 18, 937–943 (2015).
pubmed: 26154782 doi: 10.1111/ele.12471
Barnard, C. J. & Fitzsimons, J. Kin recognition and mate choice in mice: the effects of kinship, familiarity and social interference on intersexual interaction. Anim. Behav. 36, 1078–1090 (1988).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80067-8
Krackow, S. & Matuschak, B. Mate choice for non-siblings in wild house mice: evidence from a choice test and a reproductive test. Ethology 88, 99–108 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1991.tb00266.x
Musolf, K., Hoffmann, F. & Penn, D. J. Ultrasonic courtship vocalizations in wild house mice, Mus musculus musculus. Anim. Behav. 79, 757–764 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.034
Bolton, J. L. et al. Kin discrimination in prepubescent and adult Long-Evans rats. Behav. Process. 90, 415–419 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.04.008
Valsecchi, P., Razzoli, M. & Choleris, E. Influence of kinship and familiarity on the social and reproductive behaviour of female Mongolian gerbils. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14, 239–253 (2002).
doi: 10.1080/08927014.2002.9522743
Smith, B. A. & Block, M. L. Male saliva cues and female social choice in Mongolian gerbils. Physiol. Behav. 50, 379–384 (1991).
pubmed: 1745683 doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(91)90081-X
Ågren, G. Two laboratory experiments on inbreeding avoidance in the Mongolian gerbil. Behav. Process. 6, 291–297 (1981).
doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(81)90008-5
Ågren, G. Incest avoidance and bonding between siblings in gerbils. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14, 161–169 (1984).
doi: 10.1007/BF00299615
Ågren, G. Alternative mating strategies in the Mongolian gerbil. Behaviour 91, 229–243 (1984).
doi: 10.1163/156853984X00290
Heth, G., Todrank, J., Begall, S., Wegner, R. E. & Burda, H. Genetic relatedness discrimination in eusocial Cryptomys anselli mole-rats, Bathyergidae, Rodentia. Folia Zool. 53, 269–278 (2004).
Bennett, N. C., Faulkes, C. G. & Molteno, A. J. Reproductive suppression in subordinate, non-breeding female Damaraland mole-rats: two components to a lifetime of socially induced infertility. Proc. Biol. Sci. 263, 1599–1603 (1996).
pubmed: 8952096 doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0234
Carter, S. N., Goldman, B. D., Goldman, S. L. & Freeman, D. A. Social cues elicit sexual behavior in subordinate Damaraland mole-rats independent of gonadal status. Horm. Behav. 65, 14–21 (2014).
pubmed: 24246377 doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.11.001
Greeff, J. M. & Bennett, N. C. Causes and consequences of incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding mole-rat, Cryptomys darlingi (Bathyergidae). Ecol. Lett. 3, 318–328 (2000).
doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00162.x
Clarke, F. M. & Faulkes, C. G. Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proc. Biol. Sci. 266, 1995–2002 (1999).
pubmed: 10584337 pmcid: 1690316 doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0877
Marcinkowska, U. M., Moore, F. R. & Rantala, M. J. An experimental test of the Westermarck effect: sex differences in inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. 24, 842–845 (2013).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/art028
Lass-Hennemann, J. et al. Effects of stress on human mating preferences: stressed individuals prefer dissimilar mates. Proc. Biol. Sci. 277, 2175–2183 (2010).
pubmed: 20219732 pmcid: 2880157
Lass-Hennemann, J. et al. Effect of facial self-resemblance on the startle response and subjective ratings of erotic stimuli in heterosexual men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 40, 1007–1014 (2011).
pubmed: 20814814 doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9662-8
Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C. & Lalumiere, M. L. Kin recognition: evidence that humans can perceive both positive and negative relatedness. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 1472–1478 (2012).
pubmed: 22694177 doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02553.x
Kocsor, F., Rezneki, R., Juhasz, S. & Bereczkei, T. Preference for facial self-resemblance and attractiveness in human mate choice. Arch. Sex. Behav. 40, 1263–1270 (2011).
pubmed: 21267643 doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9723-z
Finke, J. B., Zhang, X., Best, D. R., Lass-Hennemann, J. & Schächinger, H. Self-resemblance modulates processing of socio-emotional pictures in a context-sensitive manner. J. Psychophysiol. 33, 127–138 (2019).
doi: 10.1027/0269-8803/a000216
Fraley, R. C. & Marks, M. J. Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 1202–1212 (2010).
pubmed: 20647594 doi: 10.1177/0146167210377180
Henkel, S. & Setchell, J. M. Group and kin recognition via olfactory cues in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1527 (2018)
Pfefferle, D., Kazem, A. J., Brockhausen, R. R., Ruiz-Lambides, A. V. & Widdig, A. Monkeys spontaneously discriminate their unfamiliar paternal kin under natural conditions using facial cues. Curr. Biol. 24, 1806–1810 (2014).
pubmed: 25065751 pmcid: 4137972 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.058
Pfefferle, D., Ruiz-Lambides, A. V. & Widdig, A. Male rhesus macaques use vocalizations to distinguish female maternal, but not paternal, kin from non-kin. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1677–1686 (2015).
pubmed: 26379365 pmcid: 4562008 doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-1979-9
Erhart, E. M., Coelho, A. M. Jr. & Bramblett, C. A. Kin recognition by paternal half-siblings in captive Papio cynocephalus. Am. J. Primatol. 43, 147–157 (1997).
pubmed: 9327097 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1997)43:2<147::AID-AJP4>3.0.CO;2-X
Craul, M., Zimmermann, E. & Radespiel, U. First experimental evidence for female mate choice in a nocturnal primate. Primates 45, 271–274 (2004).
pubmed: 15241637 doi: 10.1007/s10329-004-0097-5
Mossotti, R. H. et al. Reactions of female cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) to urine volatiles from males of varying genetic distance. Zoo Biol. 37, 229–235 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/zoo.21420
Hamilton, J. & Vonk, J. Do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer family? Behav. Process. 119, 123–134 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.08.004
Orihuela, A. & Vázquez, R. Mating preferences of Saint Croix rams to related or unrelated ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 83, 82–84 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.03.005
Fracasso, G., Tuliozi, B., Hoi, H. & Griggio, M. Can house sparrows recognize familiar or kin-related individuals by scent? Curr. Zool. 65, 53–59 (2019).
pubmed: 30697238 doi: 10.1093/cz/zoy018
Schielzeth, H., Burger, C., Bolund, E. & Forstmeier, W. Assortative versus disassortative mating preferences of female zebra finches based on self-referent phenotype matching. Anim. Behav. 76, 1927–1934 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.014
Miller, D. B. Long-term recognition of father’s song by female zebra finches. Nature 280, 389–391 (1979).
doi: 10.1038/280389a0
Burley, N., Minor, C. & Strachan, C. Social preference of zebra finches for siblings, cousins and non-kin. Anim. Behav. 39, 775–784 (1990).
doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80389-6
Kato, Y., Hasegawa, T. & Okanoya, K. Song preference of female Bengalese finches as measured by operant conditioning. J. Ethol. 28, 447–453 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s10164-010-0203-7
Schubert, C. A., Ratcliffe, L. M. & Boag, P. T. A test of inbreeding avoidance in the zebra finch. Ethology 82, 265–274 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1989.tb00507.x
Slater, P. J. B. & Clements, F. A. Incestuous mating in zebra finches. Z. Tierpsychol. 57, 201–208 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1981.tb01922.x
Arct, A., Rutkowska, J., Martyka, R., Drobniak, S. M. & Cichon, M. Kin recognition and adjustment of reproductive effort in zebra finches. Biol. Lett. 6, 762–764 (2010).
pubmed: 20573618 pmcid: 3001379 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0417
Bonadonna, F. & Sanz-Aguilar, A. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim. Behav. 84, 509–513 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.014
Vuarin, P. et al. No evidence for prezygotic postcopulatory avoidance of kin despite high inbreeding depression. Mol. Ecol. 27, 5252–5262 (2018).
pubmed: 30565783 doi: 10.1111/mec.14951
Bateson, P. Preferences for cousins in Japanese quail. Nature 295, 236–237 (1982).
doi: 10.1038/295236a0
Løvlie, H., Gillingham, M. A., Worley, K., Pizzari, T. & Richardson, D. S. Cryptic female choice favours sperm from major histocompatibility complex-dissimilar males. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20131296 (2013).
pubmed: 24004935 pmcid: 3768299
Pizzari, T., Lovlie, H. & Cornwallis, C. K. Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 2115–2121 (2004).
pubmed: 15475330 pmcid: 1691842 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2843
Denk, A. G., Holzmann, A., Peters, A., Vermeirssen, E. L. M. & Kempenaers, B. Paternity in mallards: effects of sperm quality and female sperm selection for inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. 16, 825–833 (2005).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/ari065
Jansson, N., Uller, T. & Olsson, M. Female dragons, Ctenophorus pictus, do not prefer scent from unrelated males. Aust. J. Zool. 53, 279–282 (2005).
doi: 10.1071/ZO05024
Ala-Honkola, O., Tuominen, L. & Lindström, K. Inbreeding avoidance in a poeciliid fish (Heterandria formosa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1403–1414 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-0955-7
Vega-Trejo, R., Head, M. L. & Jennions, M. D. Evidence for inbreeding depression in a species with limited opportunity for maternal effects. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1398–1404 (2015).
pubmed: 25897379 pmcid: 4395169 doi: 10.1002/ece3.1445
Pitcher, T. E., Rodd, F. H. & Rowe, L. Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): mate choice and inbreeding depression. Genetica 134, 137–146 (2008).
pubmed: 18297404 doi: 10.1007/s10709-008-9246-x
Daniel, M. J. & Rodd, F. H. Female guppies can recognize kin but only avoid incest when previously mated. Behav. Ecol. 27, 55–61 (2016).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv122
Fitzpatrick, L. J., Gasparini, C., Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Evans, J. P. Male–female relatedness and patterns of male reproductive investment in guppies. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140166 (2014).
pubmed: 24806425 pmcid: 4046373 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0166
Viken, A., Fleming, I. A. & Rosenqvist, G. Premating avoidance of inbreeding absent in female guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 112, 716–723 (2006).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01225.x
Gasparini, C. & Pilastro, A. Cryptic female preference for genetically unrelated males is mediated by ovarian fluid in the guppy. Proc. Biol. Sci. 278, 2495–2501 (2011).
pubmed: 21227973 pmcid: 3125622
Evans, J. P., Brooks, R. C., Zajitschek, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. Does genetic relatedness of mates influence competitive fertilization success in guppies? Evolution 62, 2929–2935 (2008).
pubmed: 18752613 doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00496.x
Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Evans, J. P. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in guppies. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2585–2594 (2014).
pubmed: 25387854 doi: 10.1111/jeb.12545
Speechley, E. M., Gasparini, C. & Evans, J. P. Female guppies increase their propensity for polyandry as an inbreeding avoidance strategy. Anim. Behav. 157, 87–93 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.08.016
Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr. Biol. 17, 225–229 (2007).
pubmed: 17276915 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.053
Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. Direct familiarity does not alter mating preference for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology 113, 1107–1112 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01422.x
Thünken, T., Meuthen, D., Bakker, T. C. M. & Baldauf, S. A. A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 2959–2964 (2012).
pubmed: 22513859 pmcid: 3385479
Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M. & Baldauf, S. A. ‘Armpit effect’ in an African cichlid fish: self-referent kin recognition in mating decisions of male Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 99–104 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-013-1626-2
Frommen, J. G. & Bakker, T. C. Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks. Biol. Lett. 2, 232–235 (2006).
pubmed: 17148370 pmcid: 1618905 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0432
Butts, I. A., Johnson, K., Wilson, C. C. & Pitcher, T. E. Ovarian fluid enhances sperm velocity based on relatedness in lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush. Theriogenology 78, 2105–2109 e2101 (2012).
pubmed: 23110953 doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.06.031
Gerlach, G. & Lysiak, N. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in zebrafish, Danio rerio, is based on phenotype matching. Anim. Behav. 71, 1371–1377 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.010
Kueffer, C. et al. Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 493–494 (2011).
pubmed: 21840081 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.007
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988).
Blouin, M. S. DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 503–511 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00225-8
Brown, J. L. & Eklund, A. Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: an integrative review. Am. Nat. 143, 435–461 (1994).
doi: 10.1086/285612
Penn, D. J. The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108, 1–21 (2002).
doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00768.x
Kokko, H. & Mappes, J. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 59, 1876–1885 (2005).
pubmed: 16261726
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R. & Rushton, L. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Stat. Med. 26, 4544–4562 (2007).
pubmed: 17476644 doi: 10.1002/sim.2889
Nakagawa, S. & Santos, E. S. A. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol. Ecol. 26, 1253–1274 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5
Senior, A. M. et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97, 3293–3299 (2016).
pubmed: 27912008 doi: 10.1002/ecy.1591
Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. B 264, 69–75 (1997).
pmcid: 1688229 doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0010
Carleial, R. et al. Temporal dynamics of competitive fertilization in social groups of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) shed new light on avian sperm competition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20200081 (2020).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0081
Antfolk, J. et al. Opposition to inbreeding between close kin reflects inclusive fitness costs. Front. Psychol. 9, 2101 (2018).
pubmed: 30450066 pmcid: 6224511 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02101
Kresanov, P. et al. Intergenerational incest aversion: self-reported sexual arousal and disgust to hypothetical sexual contact with family members. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39, 664–674 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.008
Richardson, J., Comin, P. & Smiseth, P. T. Inbred burying beetles suffer fitness costs from making poor decisions. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180419 (2018).
pubmed: 30051847 pmcid: 6030515 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0419
Long, T. A. F., Rowe, L. & Agrawal, A. F. The effects of selective history and environmental heterogeneity on inbreeding depression in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 181, 532–544 (2013).
pubmed: 23535617 doi: 10.1086/669675
Johnson, A. M. et al. Inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 116, 448–457 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01763.x
Barson, N., Cable, J. & Van Oosterhout, C. Population genetic analysis of microsatellite variation of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in Trinidad and Tobago: evidence for a dynamic source–sink metapopulation structure, founder events and population bottlenecks. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 485–497 (2009).
pubmed: 19210594 doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01675.x
Lindholm, A. K. et al. Invasion success and genetic diversity of introduced populations of guppies Poecilia reticulata in Australia. Mol. Ecol. 14, 3671–3682 (2005).
pubmed: 16202088 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02697.x
Hosken, D. J. & Blanckenhorn, W. U. Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts. Behav. Ecol. 10, 462–464 (1999).
doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.4.462
Duthie, A. B. & Reid, J. M. What happens after inbreeding avoidance? Inbreeding by rejected relatives and the inclusive fitness benefit of inbreeding avoidance. PLoS ONE 10, e0125140 (2015).
pubmed: 25909185 pmcid: 4409402 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125140
Taylor, H. R. The use and abuse of genetic marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding. Ecol. Evol. 5, 3140–3150 (2015).
pubmed: 26357542 pmcid: 4559056 doi: 10.1002/ece3.1541
Galla, S. J. et al. A comparison of pedigree, genetic and genomic estimates of relatedness for informing pairing decisions in two critically endangered birds: implications for conservation breeding programmes worldwide. Evol. Appl. 13, 991–1008 (2020).
pubmed: 32431748 pmcid: 7232769 doi: 10.1111/eva.12916
Charlesworth, B. & Hughes, K. A. Age-specific inbreeding depression and components of genetic variance in relation to the evolution of senescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 93, 6140 (1996).
pubmed: 8650233 pmcid: 39203 doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.12.6140
Janicke, T., Vellnow, N., Sarda, V. & David, P. Sex-specific inbreeding depression depends on the strength of male–male competition. Evolution 67, 2861–2875 (2013).
pubmed: 24094339
Armbruster, P. & Reed, D. H. Inbreeding depression in benign and stressful environments. Heredity (Edinb.) 95, 235–242 (2005).
doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800721
Lüpold, S., de Boer, R. A., Evans, J. P., Tomkins, J. L. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. How sperm competition shapes the evolution of testes and sperm: a meta-analysis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20200064 (2020).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0064
Martin-Wintle, M. S. et al. Free mate choice enhances conservation breeding in the endangered giant panda. Nat. Commun. 6, 10125 (2015).
pubmed: 26670381 doi: 10.1038/ncomms10125
Martin-Wintle, M. S., Wintle, N. J. P., Díez-León, M., Swaisgood, R. R. & Asa, C. S. Improving the sustainability of ex situ populations with mate choice. Zoo Biol. 38, 119–132 (2019).
pubmed: 30474268 doi: 10.1002/zoo.21450
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).
pubmed: 19621072 pmcid: 2707599 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan–a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210 (2016).
pubmed: 27919275 pmcid: 5139140 doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Pick, J. L., Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A. & Price, S. Reproducible, flexible and high-throughput data extraction from primary literature: the metaDigitise R package. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 426–431 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13118
R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012).
Hedges, L. & Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis (Academic, 1985).
Rosenberg, M. S., Rothstein, H. R. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) 61–71 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).
Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Del Re, A. compute.es: compute effect sizes, R package version 0.2-2 (2013).
Michonneau, F., Brown, J. W., Winter, D. J. & Fitzjohn, R. rotl: an R package to interact with the Open Tree of Life data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1476–1481 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12593
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 85, 935–956 (2010).
pubmed: 20569253
Higgins, J. & Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
Kossmeier, M., Tran, U. S. & Voracek, M. metaviz: forest plots, funnel plots, and visual funnel plot inference for meta-analysis, R package version 0.3.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metaviz (2018).
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R. & Rushton, L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 991–996 (2008).
pubmed: 18538991 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634 (1997).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v033.i02
Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463 (2000).
pubmed: 10877304 doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
Shi, L. & Lin, L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Med. (Baltim.) 98, e15987 (2019).
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015987
Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. A nonparametric ‘trim and fill’ method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 89–98 (2000).
Møller, A. & Jennions, M. D. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132, 492–500 (2002).
pubmed: 28547634 doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-0952-2
Szulkin, M. & Sheldon, B. C. The environmental dependence of inbreeding depression in a wild bird population. PLoS ONE 2, e1027 (2007).
pubmed: 17925875 pmcid: 2001187 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001027
Zeh, D. W. & Zeh, J. A. Reproductive mode and speciation: the viviparity-driven conflict hypothesis. Bioessays 22, 938–946 (2000).
pubmed: 10984720 doi: 10.1002/1521-1878(200010)22:10<938::AID-BIES9>3.0.CO;2-9
Waser, P. M., Austad, S. N. & Keane, B. When should animals tolerate inbreeding? Am. Nat. 128, 529–537 (1986).
doi: 10.1086/284585
Puurtinen, M. Mate choice for optimal (k)inbreeding. Evolution 65, 1501–1505 (2011).
pubmed: 21521199 doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01217.x
Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71–73 (2002).
pubmed: 11780118 doi: 10.1038/415071a
Birkhead, T. R. & Pizzari, T. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 262–273 (2002).
pubmed: 11967551 doi: 10.1038/nrg774
Duthie, A. B., Bocedi, G., Germain, R. R. & Reid, J. M. Evolution of precopulatory and post-copulatory strategies of inbreeding avoidance and associated polyandry. J. Evol. Biol. 31, 31–45 (2018).
pubmed: 28986951 doi: 10.1111/jeb.13189
Barry, K. L. & Kokko, H. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim. Behav. 80, 163–169 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.020

Auteurs

Raïssa A de Boer (RA)

Department of Zoology: Ethology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. deboer.raissa@gmail.com.

Regina Vega-Trejo (R)

Department of Zoology: Ethology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. reginavegatrejo@gmail.com.

Alexander Kotrschal (A)

Department of Zoology: Ethology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Animal Sciences: Behavioural Ecology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

John L Fitzpatrick (JL)

Department of Zoology: Ethology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH