IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v415y2002i6867d10.1038_415071a.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Tregenza

    (Ecology and Evolution Group, School of Biology, University of Leeds)

  • Nina Wedell

    (Ecology and Evolution Group, School of Biology, University of Leeds)

Abstract

Why do females typically mate with more than one male? Female mating patterns have broad implications for sexual selection1,2, speciation3 and conflicts of interest between the sexes4, and yet they are poorly understood. Matings inevitably have costs5, and for females, the benefits of taking more than one mate are rarely obvious. One possible explanation is that females gain benefits because they can avoid using sperm from genetically incompatible males, or invest less in the offspring of such males6,7. It has been shown that mating with more than one male can increase offspring viability8,9,10,11,12, but we present the first clear demonstration that this occurs because females with several mates avoid the negative effects of genetic incompatibility13. We show that in crickets, the eggs of females that mate only with siblings have decreased hatching success. However, if females mate with both a sibling and a non-sibling they avoid altogether the low egg viability associated with sibling matings. If similar effects occur in other species, inbreeding avoidance may be important in understanding the prevalence of multiple mating.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Tregenza & Nina Wedell, 2002. "Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6867), pages 71-73, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:415:y:2002:i:6867:d:10.1038_415071a
    DOI: 10.1038/415071a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/415071a
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/415071a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & John A. List & Sandra Maximiano, 2013. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Socialization at a Young Age: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1438-1443, October.
    2. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2004. "Gender and Competition at a Young Age," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 377-381, May.
    3. Panagiotis G Milonas & George K Partsinevelos & David A Andow, 2017. "Effect of male mating history and age on remating by female European corn borer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Songfa Zhong & Mikhail Monakhov & Helen P Mok & Terry Tong & Poh San Lai & Soo Hong Chew & Richard P Ebstein, 2012. "U-Shaped Relation between Plasma Oxytocin Levels and Behavior in the Trust Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Emily R. Burdfield-Steel & Sam Auty & David M. Shuker, 2015. "Do the benefits of polyandry scale with outbreeding?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1423-1431.
    6. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth L. Leonard & John A. List, 2009. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1637-1664, September.
    7. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth Leonard & John List, 2008. "Rise and Fall of Competitiveness in Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies," Natural Field Experiments 00465, The Field Experiments Website.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:415:y:2002:i:6867:d:10.1038_415071a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.