Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30789896›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2019

Scrutinizing assortative mating in birds.

Daiping Wang, Wolfgang Forstmeier, Mihai Valcu, Niels J Dingemanse, Martin Bulla, Christiaan Both, Renée A Duckworth, Lynna Marie Kiere, Patrik Karell, Tomáš Albrecht and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Social calls of the little auk (Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Daiping WangDepartment of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.
Wolfgang ForstmeierDepartment of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5984-8925
Mihai ValcuDepartment of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.
Niels J DingemanseBehavioural Ecology, Department of Biology, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Planegg-Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3320-0861
Martin BullaDepartment of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1328-1927
Christiaan BothConservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-9831
Renée A DuckworthDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Lynna Marie KiereCenter for the Study of Biodiversity and Conservation (CIByC), Autonomous University of the State of Morelos, Cuernavaca Morelos, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-4675-3334
Patrik KarellBioeconomy Research Team, Novia University of Applied Sciences, Raseborgsvägen, Ekenäs, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-0297-125X
Tomáš AlbrechtInstitute of Vertebrate Biology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, and Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9213-0034
Bart KempenaersDepartment of Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7505-5458

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Body SizeAnimalsFemaleFinchesMaleMating Preference, AnimalObserver VariationPair BondPhenotypeSample Size

Identifiers

PMID30789896
PMCPMC6400405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.