Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds

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 a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PLoS biology 2019-02, Vol.17 (2), p.e3000156-e3000156
Main Authors: Wang, Daiping, Forstmeier, Wolfgang, Valcu, Mihai, Dingemanse, Niels J, Bulla, Martin, Both, Christiaan, Duckworth, Renée A, Kiere, Lynna Marie, Karell, Patrik, Albrecht, Tomáš, Kempenaers, Bart
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Assortative mating
Bias
Biology
Biology and Life Sciences
Birds
Body Size
Competition
Computer and Information Sciences
Earth Sciences
Ecology
Female
Finches - physiology
Genetics
Life sciences
Male
Mate selection
Mating Preference, Animal - physiology
Medicine and Health Sciences
Meta
Observer Variation
Ornithology
Pair Bond
Phenotype
Physical Sciences
Research and Analysis Methods
Sample Size
Science Policy
Software
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 Specifically, the effect size decreased by 42% when we used previously unpublished data from nine long-term field studies, i.e., data free of reporting and publication bias (r = 0.103, 95% CI 0.074-0.132, eight species, 16,611 pairs).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.
ISSN:1545-7885
1544-9173
1545-7885
DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000156