Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42063261›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

The costs of extra-pair behaviours in birds.

Jørgen S Søraker, Jamie Dunning

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jørgen S SørakerEdward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3EL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8146-4576
Jamie DunningImperial College London Silwood Park, Campus is Buckhurst Road, Sunninghill, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8234-8526

Funding

Natural Environment Research Council NE/P012345/1UK Research and Innovation EP/X024520/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extra-pair behaviours - reproductive behaviours, including those related to copulation and paternity of offspring, amongst animals outside of a social pair bond - have long intrigued behavioural ecologists, particularly from the female animal's perspective. Female extra-pair paternity is not supported by classic models of sexual selection yet is common across birds. Researchers recognise that variation in extra-pair paternity, both within and between species, is in part driven by the costs to the individual; however, empirical studies tend to focus on benefits. This is because benefits are often measured through direct fitness measurements, whereas costs have more complex, indirect pathways to fitness. However, both the prevalence and magnitude of a cost are experienced in the context of an individual's environment and may affect fitness, either directly (by affecting reproduction or survival) or indirectly (through the fitness of offspring). Here, we review our current understanding of costs associated with extra-pair paternity and extra-pair copulation. For example, we review both the costs of producing extra-pair offspring and the behaviour associated with extra-pair paternity. We conclude that the costs of extra-pair paternity and extra-pair copulation are understudied, but are likely a key factor shaping this behaviour. More research, particularly empirical and experimental studies in taxa other than birds, is needed to understand the intricate cost-benefit equation underlying extra-pair paternity.

Indexed as

BirdsSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsFemaleReproductionbirdsextra‐pair paternityfitness costsharassmentparental carereproductionsexually transmitted diseasessexual selection

Identifiers

PMID42063261
PMCPMC13542329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.