ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2017
The contrasting role of male relatedness in different mechanisms of sexual selection in red junglefowl.
Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Domestication is associated with increased interspecific hybrid compatibility in landfowl (order: Galliformes).The Journal of heredity · 2024Article
- No evidence that relatedness or familiarity modulates male harm inEcology and evolution · 2022Article
- Sex-biased demography modulates male harm across the genome.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Female novelty and male status dynamically modulate ejaculate expenditure and seminal fluid proteome over successive matings in red junglefowl.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Sophisticated Fowl: The Complex Behaviour and Cognitive Skills of Chickens and Red Junglefowl.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Male relatedness and familiarity are required to modulate male-induced harm to females inProceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Aggression and spatial positioning of kin and non-kin fish in social groups.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In structured populations, competition for reproductive opportunities should be relaxed among related males. The few tests of this prediction often neglect the fact that sexual selection acts through multiple mechanisms, both before and after mating. We performed experiments to study the role of within-group male relatedness across pre- and postcopulatory mechanisms of sexual selection in social groups of red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, in which two related males and one unrelated male competed over females unrelated to all the males. We confirm theoretical expectations that, after controlling for male social status, competition over mating was reduced among related males. However, this effect was contrasted by other sexual selection mechanisms. First, females biased male mating in favor of the unrelated male, and might also favor his inseminations after mating. Second, males invested more-rather than fewer-sperm in postcopulatory competition with relatives. A number of factors may contribute to explain this counterintuitive pattern of sperm allocation, including trade-offs between male investment in pre- versus postcopulatory competition, differences in the relative relatedness of pre- versus postcopulatory competitors, and female bias in sperm utilization in response to male relatedness. Collectively, these results reveal that within-group male relatedness may have contrasting effects in different mechanisms of sexual selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.