Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34344184›Full record

SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2021

Why don't all animals avoid inbreeding?

Victoria L Pike, Charlie K Cornwallis, Ashleigh S Griffin

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Why don't all animals avoid inbreeding?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Victoria L PikeDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK.
Charlie K CornwallisDepartment of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ashleigh S GriffinDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011224/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals are expected to avoid mating with relatives as inbreeding can reduce offspring fitness, a phenomenon known as inbreeding depression. This has led to the widespread assumption that selection will favour individuals that avoid mating with relatives. However, the strength of inbreeding avoidance is variable across species and there are numerous cases where related mates are not avoided. Here we test if the frequency that related males and females encounter each other explains variation in inbreeding avoidance using phylogenetic meta-analysis of 41 different species from six classes across the animal kingdom. In species reported to mate randomly with respect to relatedness, individuals were either unlikely to encounter relatives, or inbreeding had negligible effects on offspring fitness. Mechanisms for avoiding inbreeding, including active mate choice, post-copulatory processes and sex-biased dispersal, were only found in species with inbreeding depression. These results help explain why some species seem to care more about inbreeding than others: inbreeding avoidance through mate choice only evolves when there is both a risk of inbreeding depression and related sexual partners frequently encounter each other.

Indexed as

Inbreeding DepressionMating Preference, AnimalAnimalsCopulationFemaleHumansInbreedingMalePhylogenyReproductionSexual Behavior, Animalinbreeding avoidanceinbreeding depressionrandom mating

Identifiers

PMID34344184
PMCPMC8334842

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.