Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34621537›Full record

ArticleEvolution letters2021

Should females prefer old males?

Julia Carolina Segami, Martin I Lind, Anna Qvarnström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution letters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Coevolution of longevity and female germline maintenance.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. 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.

Julia Carolina SegamiDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology Uppsala University Uppsala SE-75236 Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9885-1537
Martin I LindDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology Uppsala University Uppsala SE-75236 Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5602-1933
Anna QvarnströmDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology Uppsala University Uppsala SE-75236 Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-4053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether females should prefer to mate with old males is controversial. Old males may sire offspring of low quality because of an aging germline, but their proven ability to reach an old age can also be an excellent indicator of superior genetic quality, especially in natural populations. These genetic effects are, however, hard to study in nature, because they are often confounded with direct benefits offered by old males to the female, such as experience and high territory quality. We, therefore, used naturally occurring extra-pair young to disentangle different aspects of male age on female fitness in a natural population of collared flycatchers because any difference between within- and extra-pair young within a nest should be caused by paternal genetic effects only. Based on 18 years of long-term data, we found that females paired with older males as social partners experienced an overall reproductive advantage. However, offspring sired by old males were of lower quality as compared to their extra-pair half-siblings, whereas the opposite was found in nests attended by young males. These results imply a negative genetic effect of old paternal age, given that extra-pair males are competitive middle-age males. Thus, offspring may benefit from being sired by young males but raised by old males, to maximize both genetic and direct effects. Our results show that direct and genetic benefits from pairing with old males may act in opposing directions and that the quality of the germline may deteriorate before other signs of senescence become obvious.

Indexed as

Ageingdirect benefitsextra‐pair matingfemale preferencegenetic benefitsgermline senescencemate choicereproductive senescence

Identifiers

PMID34621537
PMCPMC8484724

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.