IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i3p575-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why some species of birds do not avoid inbreeding: insights from New Zealand robins and saddlebacks

Author

Listed:
  • Ian G. Jamieson
  • Sabrina S. Taylor
  • Lisa N. Tracy
  • Hanna Kokko
  • Doug P. Armstrong

Abstract

When dispersal options are limited and encounters with relatives are likely, individuals need to recognize and avoid mating with kin to avoid the fitness costs of close inbreeding. New Zealand robins and saddlebacks are genetically monogamous and possess life-history traits that predict they should show zero tolerance of close inbreeding. However, of 11 population-years of pedigree data, there was evidence of inbreeding avoidance in only 1 year. We also found no indication that incestuous pairings were avoided or that individuals were choosing genetically dissimilar mates based on microsatellite DNA analysis. Furthermore, a review of the literature revealed that inbreeding avoidance via kin recognition is common in cooperatively breeding birds, but pair-breeding birds such as robins and saddlebacks mate randomly with respect to relatedness. A model that incorporates encounter rates with close kin for various degrees of mate-searching effort shows that inbreeding avoidance is beneficial at intermediate to high levels of encounter rates with close kin (as found in cooperative breeders), but that random mating is more beneficial at low or extremely high encounter rates. We conclude that random mating normally results in such low rates of close inbreeding that it exerts negligible selection pressure to evolve kin recognition. Consequently, many threatened species are unlikely to have a natural "built-in" mechanism for avoiding close inbreeding, and the assumption of random mating built into many population viability models may be appropriate. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian G. Jamieson & Sabrina S. Taylor & Lisa N. Tracy & Hanna Kokko & Doug P. Armstrong, 2009. "Why some species of birds do not avoid inbreeding: insights from New Zealand robins and saddlebacks," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(3), pages 575-584.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:575-584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Adeline Loyau & Jérémie H Cornuau & Jean Clobert & Étienne Danchin, 2012. "Incestuous Sisters: Mate Preference for Brothers over Unrelated Males in Drosophila melanogaster," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    2. A Bradley Duthie & Jane M Reid, 2015. "What Happens after Inbreeding Avoidance? Inbreeding by Rejected Relatives and the Inclusive Fitness Benefit of Inbreeding Avoidance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Jarne, C. & Gómez Albarracín, F.A. & Caruso, M., 2021. "An algorithm to represent inbreeding trees," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 572(C).
    4. Jussi S. Alho & Céline Teplitsky & James A. Mills & John W. Yarrall & Juha Merilä, 2012. "No evidence for inbreeding avoidance through active mate choice in red-billed gulls," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 672-675.
    5. Patricia Brekke & Jinliang Wang & Peter M. Bennett & Phillip Cassey & Deborah A. Dawson & Gavin J. Horsburgh & John G. Ewen, 2012. "Postcopulatory mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance in the island endemic hihi (Notiomystis cincta)," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 278-284.

    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:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:575-584. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    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.