Mol. While a simple classification would be useful for cross-species comparisons, monogamous, polyandrous, and polygynous marriage systems exist across contemporary human societies. CL organized the dataset, conducted the data analyses, and wrote most of the first draft of the manuscript. These species are all long-lived. Alonzo, S. H. (2010). 26, 959968. Monogamy. doi: 10.2307/3071771, Petrie, M., and Kempenaers, B. If they do, siblings are all equally related by half their genes, both to . For each variable of interest, we first searched the paper in which we had found the genetic parentage data for that species and the Mammalian Species account for that species when available. Evolution and maintenance of male care: is increased paternity a neglected benefit of care? 25, 99108. Sci. So, like the pied flycatcher parents, we are monogamous too. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, is normative in Western societies, and previous research has established that monogamy has an adaptive basis for both men and women (e.g., Klug, 2018). All rights reserved. Evol. Behav. Reacting to these findings, some suggested that the level of EPP was significantly higher historically, because of lack of effective contraception and other contributory factors. Female spacing has been proposed to be a very important driver of social monogamy (Komers and Brotherton, 1997; but see Dobson et al., 2010) and may also influence genetic monogamy due to the inability of males to control access to more than one female (see also Isvaran and Clutton-Brock, 2007). Ecology 80, 11421149. Why Monogamy? 24, 18361841. The proportion of intra-pair young (IPY) produced by species of socially monogamous mammals with differing levels of paternal care, ranked from species that provide no paternal care to those that provide intensive paternal care. However, levels of EPP in contemporary human populations have been shown to be, surprisingly (to me at least), just one to two per cent. [Diploma]. U.S.A. 110, 1332813332. What happens in my body when I fall in love? doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.009, Dobson, F. S., Way, B. M., and Baudoin, C. (2010). Although monogamy typically had been considered to encompass living with an opposite-sex conspecific, formation, and maintenance of a pair-bond, mating exclusivity, and biparental care (Kleiman, 1977; Wittenberger and Tilson, 1980; Mock and Fujioka, 1990), we now understand that monogamous species are quite variable in their social and reproductive behaviors (Westneat et al., 1990; Gowaty, 1996; Griffith et al., 2002) and that these social and reproductive aspects of monogamy may be under selection from different evolutionary pressures. R. Soc. In seven of our 41 species (17%), all pairs were genetically monogamous i.e., had no extra-pair young detected, although the sample size for the Bornean gibbon (Hylobates muelleri) was only 5 offspring. Stay up to date with the latest developments in the worlds of science and technology. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Isvaran, K. (2006). Evol. Click the card to flip Definition 1 / 16 (1998). This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.09.023, Stutchbury, B. J., and Morton, E. S. (1995). Gowaty, P. A. It is most common in birds and rare in other animals (Figure 4). Finally, some variables may be bidirectional i.e., they may influence genetic monogamy as well as being influenced by the level of genetic monogamy (Andersson, 1994; Alonzo, 2010). Sociobiol. But this leaves open the question of whether that system is . It is unclear, however, if genetic monogamy occurs as a consequence of the life history traits of socially monogamous species or is mainly driven by demographic or environmental factors. Supplementary Data Sheet 1. Hypotheses* proposed to explain genetic monogamy in mammals. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. For example, selection for genetic compatibility between members of a pair may result in pairs with low genetic compatibility being less likely to be genetically monogamous than more genetically compatible pairs within the same population (Griffith et al., 2002). See Table 1 for more information on the variables included in model selection. Mate choice for neutral and MHC genetic characteristics in Alpine marmots: different targets in different contexts? Anthropol. Monogamy is a big part of our romantic relationships. This type of phylogenetic regression is similar to analyses in previous comparative studies on genetic monogamy (Isvaran and Clutton-Brock, 2007; Huck et al., 2014). doi: 10.1111/mec.12434, Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L., and McMahon, T. A. The social structure hypothesis predicts that individuals living in groups would not be expected to be as genetically monogamous as those that live in male-female pairs (Mller and Birkhead, 1993) because there are more opportunities for EPCs in groups with multiple adults of one or both sexes. And so cooperation and teamwork, aka monogamy, are essential. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3723, Kempenaers, B., Verheyen, G. R., Van den Broeck, M., Burke, T., Van Broeckhoven, C., and Dhondt, A. Sci. The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Proc. 39, 374388. Levels vary substantially, however. Discover our latest special editions covering a range of fascinating topics from the latest scientific discoveries to the big ideas explained. By my calculations they will each carry 6,000 times their own bodyweight to the nest. Ecology 76, 326335. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80106-5, Ferrandiz-Rovira, M., Allain, D., Callait-Cardinal, M. P., and Cohas, A. Our results show that no one model was consistently the best for all our indices of genetic monogamy. Trends Ecol. 26, 14991507. Extra-pair copulations in a lek: the secondary mating system of monogamous razorbills. Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity? Of course, human infants are altricial too. All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02033.x, Huck, M., Fernandez-Duque, E., Babb, P., and Schurr, T. (2014). (2002). Mating Systems and Strategies. For example, lesbians were among the first women to declare themselves "sex radicals" and question negative attitudes toward . Although we found no single model that best explained all our indices of genetic monogamy, our results strongly demonstrate that social structure and paternal care are important in explaining variation in genetic monogamy of mammalian species, with some evidence for a couple demographic variables. To accomplish this, we used a subset of a Mammalian supertree downloaded from TimeTree (on Dec 14, 2017), a publicly available phylogenetic tree synthesized from published phylogenies (Hedges et al., 2006, 2015; Kumar et al., 2017), that included our species of interest (Supplementary Image 1). Monogamy and mating: The surprising similarities between birds and humans, All products were chosen independently by our editorial team. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msv037, Hilgartner, R., Fichtel, C., Kappeler, P. M., and Zinner, D. (2012). 283:20160140. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0140, Streatfeild, C. A., Mabry, K. E., Keane, B., Crist, T. O., and Solomon, N. G. (2011). The positive relationship between levels of paternal care and IPY is consistent with the results of Huck et al. doi: 10.1525/aa.1998.100.4.890, Fuentes, A. These demographic and environmental factors could affect the occurrence of genetic monogamy by influencing the costs and benefits to males of pursuing EPCs or the potential costs of EPCs to females (Westneat and Stewart, 2003). Lond. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp037, Tecot, S. R., Singletary, B., and Eadie, E. (2016). 6:30. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00030, Kokko, H., Ranta, E., Ruxton, G., and Lundberg, P. (2002). C. polyandry. Evol. Thats a nine-fold increase in mass in just 10 days. Behav. Ecol. Behav. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx116, Kvarnemo, C. (2006). 13, 12171229. The variables we examined based on these hypotheses were: the type/amount of paternal care provided to young, frequency with which the male and female were closely associated, the type of social unit most common in the species, the seasonality of the species' breeding, population density (square root of the density multiplied by average mass of an adult individual), the population sex ratio, and climatic variability (as assessed by the Koppen-Geiger's climate classification, Peel et al., 2007) for the study site. Genetic Monogamy in Socially Monogamous Mammals Is Primarily Predicted by Multiple Life History Factors: A Meta-Analysis Connor T. Lambert 1, Anne C. Sabol 2 and Nancy G. Solomon 1* 1 Department of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, United States 2 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States There have been numerous reviews of the hypotheses proposed to explain monogamy, some of which focused on animals in general, while others focused on particular classes like birds or mammals, or on specific orders within a class. Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Suleski, M., and Hedges, S. B. Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. (2017). Results: We found sufficient data to include 41 species in our analysis, about 2x more than have been included in previous analyses of mammalian genetic monogamy. Behav. Maybe humans are most like long-lived birds. Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F., and Thuman, K. A. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307903110, Paradis, E., Claude, J., and Strimmer, K. (2004). Bull. We then calculated one mean for each species from these lower and upper-end estimates and used these means in our models. Living as a member of a pair was an important predictor of genetic monogamy either by itself or in combination with other life history variables such as paternal care, the amount of male-female association or sex ratio. Demographic variables were not good predictors of IPY or IPL but the combination of sex ratio and either social structure or population density were two of the top models for GM pairs, with increases in population density or the proportion of adult males in the population having a negative effect on GM pairs. (2003). doi: 10.1007/s10144-017-0598-x. Due to this benefit, males seek paternity assurance to avoid caring for extra-pair offspring and females limit extra-pair matings to secure paternal care, both of which promote genetic monogamy (Birkhead and Mller, 1996; Gowaty, 1996). Behav. Bioinformatics 22, 29712972. doi: 10.1086/409721, Klug, H. (2018). See Table 1 for more information on the variables used in model selection. Ecology 83, 18701885. We found two published papers with parentage data for three species and used the paper with the largest sample size and/or the paper from which we could calculate the specific index of genetic monogamy for our analyses. Supplementary Table 3. We tend to look at the whole world through the lens of science, even Valentines Day. 1- social monogamy 2- genetic monogamy social monogamy These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have greater reproductive success than others within a population, for . Comp. However, genetic monogamy may be driven more by demographic or environmental factors such as population density (Westneat and Sherman, 1997), a strongly male biased adult sex ratio (Fromhage et al., 2005), or environmental variability (Botero and Rubenstein, 2012). The pair association hypothesis predicts that the trade-off between mate guarding and pursuing EPCs determine levels of genetic monogamy (Clutton-Brock and Isvaran, 2006). These examples highlight some of the challenges in trying to encapsulate relevant factors into a model that predicts genetic monogamy across numerous species. Birds are monogamous because their young are tiny, helpless and immature (or altricial) and require loads of parental care. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01790.x, Fuentes, A. Fortunately especially for those of you sporting mammary glands babies dont grow nine-fold in 10 days. 100, 890907. 11, 197232. Varian-Ramos, C. W., and Webster, M. S. (2012). We found that living as part of a socially monogamous pair vs. in a group was the best predictor of genetic monogamy, either by itself or in combination with high levels of paternal care. 264, 675681. Thus, breeding synchrony provides more opportunities for mating and thus increases the opportunity for EPCs by males (Stutchbury and Morton, 1995; Stutchbury, 1998a,b). Other species (a minority) pair for several seasons and even for life. A gene pool refers to the combination of all the genes (including alleles) present in a reproducing population or species. Ecol. Check out what's happening at the Science Museum during your visit. They are undoubtedly very cute, but lets be honest, they are rubbish. Extrapair paternity in birds: understanding variation among species. Evol. Intraspecific variability in the social and genetic mating systems of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. J. Primatol. Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II polymorphism and paternity in the monogamous Hypogeomys antimena, the endangered, largest endemic Malagasy rodent. Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). Table of Contents Exogamy Definition Importance of Exogamy Exogamy Examples Exogamy vs. Endogamy Lesson Summary Exogamy Definition There are many types of marital relationships, including. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12151, Loehle, C. (1995). Mate Choice and Sexually Selected Traits S. Dhole, M.R. All of our procedures followed the applicable meta-analysis standards set forward by the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009). Supplementary Table 2. Additionally, relatedness between members of a pair and the genetic benefits of EPY can influence the levels of EPCs in a variety of socially monogamous species (Blomqvist et al., 2002; Varian-Ramos and Webster, 2012; Leclaire et al., 2013; Arct et al., 2015). They do that for 19 hours a day for 15 days. Do gorilla females join males to avoid infanticide? doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl505, Hedges, S. B., Marin, J., Suleski, M., Paymer, M., and Kumar, S. (2015). Consequently, human babies have small brains at birth, meaning they are super altricial. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0760, Dillard, J. R., and Westneat, D. F. (2016). In May 2023, Frontiers adopted a new reporting platform to be Counter 5 compliant, in line with industry standards. Demographic variables, specifically sex ratio and population density, only appeared in two of the top models for GM pairs. Proc. These three indices were: the proportion of a female's young sired by her social partner (referred to as intra-pair young, hereafter IPY); the proportion of all litters that were sired exclusively by a social pair (referred to as intra-pair litters, hereafter IPL), i.e., all offspring of a particular litter are assigned to one mother and one father (her social partner); and the proportion of pairs that had only within-pair offspring or litters (referred to as genetically monogamous pairs, hereafter GM pairs). 8, 12591272. 60, 101109. (1992). Behav. Ecol. Figure 3. They proposed the hypothesis that the combination of particular characteristics of canids has led to both monogamy and pro . Staggering, isnt it? Krause, J., and Ruxton, G. D. (2002). Popul. Flow chart for the literature search for studies of socially monogamous mammals with genetic parentage data. Others include the red fox, a few rodents and the giant otter. 12, 28452851. Although these studies found different explanations for genetic monogamy, the relative importance of these various hypotheses has not been directly compared. A model for evolution of male parental care and female multiple mating. 6:139. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00139. Monogamy: an ambiguous concept, in Mate Choice, ed P. Bateson (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 3350. We found the most species for the order Carnivora (14/41 = 34%), Primates (11/41 = 27%), and Rodentia (13/41 = 32%). Cancel at any time when you subscribe via Direct Debit. R. Soc. The proportion of intra-pair young (IPY) produced by species of socially monogamous mammals that live primarily in pairs, groups, or that are intermediate between these two types of social structure. Annu. Ecol. Syst. When a man is concurrently married to two or more women we call it polygyny, and when a woman is concurrently married to two or more men we call it polyandry. 7, 331369. R. Soc. The paternal care hypothesis predicts that care by the male parent, in addition to that provided by the mother, is critical for optimal offspring growth and survival. Sci. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Species that are group-living had lower levels of IPY, IPL, and GM pairs compared to species in which individuals lived in pairs or displayed intermediate social structure (Figure 2, Table 3). 149, 646667. Furthermore, data on variables not yet examined in many socially monogamous species e.g., relatedness between members of the breeding pair, would allow us to test additional hypotheses proposed to explain genetic monogamy. Therefore, our objective was to determine the relative importance of hypotheses proposed to explain genetic monogamy in socially monogamous mammals. All of these variables were proportional data, therefore they were arcsine square-root transformed for the analyses. Alternatively, female-biased sex ratios could provide opportunities for males to mate with multiple females. Earth Syst. Young pied flycatchers are blind and weigh just 1.5g on hatching. Adjusting for body weight, chimpanzees have huge testicles compared to us. Current evidence suggests that female dispersion is the primary driver of social monogamy in mammals (Dobson et al., 2010; Lukas and Clutton-Brock, 2013).
Effective Use Of Resources In The Classroom,
Summer Camps St George Utah,
Tennessee Little League State Tournament 2023,
Articles W
what is genetic monogamy example
