IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds

Author

Listed:
  • Daiping Wang
  • Wolfgang Forstmeier
  • Mihai Valcu
  • Niels J Dingemanse
  • Martin Bulla
  • Christiaan Both
  • Renée A Duckworth
  • Lynna Marie Kiere
  • Patrik Karell
  • Tomáš Albrecht
  • Bart Kempenaers

Abstract

It is often claimed that pair bonds preferentially form between individuals that resemble one another. Such assortative mating appears to be widespread throughout the animal kingdom. Yet it is unclear whether the apparent ubiquity of assortative mating arises primarily from mate choice (“like attracts like”), which can be constrained by same-sex competition for mates; from spatial or temporal separation; or from observer, reporting, publication, or search bias. Here, based on a conventional literature search, we find compelling meta-analytical evidence for size-assortative mating in birds (r = 0.178, 95% CI 0.142–0.215, 83 species, 35,591 pairs). However, our analyses reveal that this effect vanishes gradually with increased control of confounding factors. Specifically, the effect size decreased by 42% when we used previously unpublished data from nine long-term field studies, i.e., data free of reporting and publication bias (r = 0.103, 95% CI 0.074–0.132, eight species, 16,611 pairs). Moreover, in those data, assortative mating effectively disappeared when both partners were measured by independent observers or separately in space and time (mean r = 0.018, 95% CI −0.016–0.057). Likewise, we also found no evidence for assortative mating in a direct experimental test for mutual mate choice in captive populations of Zebra finches (r = −0.020, 95% CI −0.148–0.107, 1,414 pairs). These results highlight the importance of unpublished data in generating unbiased meta-analytical conclusions and suggest that the apparent ubiquity of assortative mating reported in the literature is overestimated and may not be driven by mate choice or mating competition for preferred mates.Human mate choice is characterized by assortative mating (‘like attracts like’) and similarity of partners is also often reported for birds. A meta-analysis of published and previously unpublished datasets shows that the reported assortative mating in birds may mostly reflect biases in estimation rather than mate choice.Author summary: Research on mate choice in birds has attracted much attention, partly because many birds form monogamous pair bonds like humans do. Human mate choice is characterized by the phenomenon of “like attracts like,” meaning that partners resemble each other in multiple ways (“assortative mating”). Assortative mating is also frequently reported for birds, but it is unclear whether this in turn implies that birds also have preferences for a similar partner. Here, we show that a range of methodological issues may provide a simpler and more accurate explanation for the frequent observation of assortative mating in birds. First, studies that report assortative mating may achieve greater visibility than studies that yield no such finding. Hence, the scientific literature may be biased toward positive results. Second, in field studies, it is logistically impossible to measure all birds accurately and under standardized conditions. Hence, fluctuations in, for instance, environmental conditions may induce a spurious similarity between partners when these are measured together in space or time. After accounting for such methodological issues, we conclude that mate preferences for a similar partner may be less common than previously thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Daiping Wang & Wolfgang Forstmeier & Mihai Valcu & Niels J Dingemanse & Martin Bulla & Christiaan Both & Renée A Duckworth & Lynna Marie Kiere & Patrik Karell & Tomáš Albrecht & Bart Kempenaers, 2019. "Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000156
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Bulla & Mihai Valcu & Anne L. Rutten & Bart Kempenaers, 2014. "Biparental incubation patterns in a high-Arctic breeding shorebird: how do pairs divide their duties?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(1), pages 152-164.
    2. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    3. Luke Holman & Megan L Head & Robert Lanfear & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Katharina Foerster & Kaspar Delhey & Arild Johnsen & Jan T. Lifjeld & Bart Kempenaers, 2003. "Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6959), pages 714-717, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daiping Wang & Wolfgang Forstmeier & Damien R. Farine & Adriana A. Maldonado-Chaparro & Katrin Martin & Yifan Pei & Gustavo Alarcón-Nieto & James A. Klarevas-Irby & Shouwen Ma & Lucy M. Aplin & Bart K, 2022. "Machine learning reveals cryptic dialects that explain mate choice in a songbird," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    2. Pantazi Marius, 2021. "In order to thrive, first we need to fix accounting and management Then, we must report what matters," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 723-736, December.
    3. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Anna Ulrichshofer & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Social Comparison and Optimal Contracts in the Competition for Managerial Talent," Working Papers 2020-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    8. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    9. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    11. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    12. Hazel J. Nichols & Michael A. Cant & Jennifer L. Sanderson, 2015. "Adjustment of costly extra-group paternity according to inbreeding risk in a cooperative mammal," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(6), pages 1486-1494.
    13. Ellen van Wilgenburg & Mark A Elgar, 2013. "Confirmation Bias in Studies of Nestmate Recognition: A Cautionary Note for Research into the Behaviour of Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    14. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    15. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    17. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    18. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Other publications TiSEM 6fbb6b92-0e06-4271-b6e7-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Ioan Ianoş & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor, 2020. "An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, July.

    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:plo:pbio00:3000156. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.