Reconstructing genetic mating systems in the absence of parental information in colonially breeding waterbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA-based studies have demonstrated that avian genetic mating systems vary widely, with many species deviating from long-assumed monogamy by practicing extra-pair paternity and conspecific brood parasitism. Colonially breeding waterbirds provide interesting models in which to investigate this question because they show nesting habits proposed to promote alternative reproductive strategies. However, little is known about the genetic mating systems of this group of birds, mainly due to difficulties in obtaining genetic data from incubating adults at nests that are necessary for conducting conventional parentage studies. Here, we inferred kinship patterns among offspring in broods of three co-distributed waterbird species, Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) and Great Egret (Ardea alba egretta), to investigate genetic mating system in the absence of parental data. RESULTS: Multi-step analyses combining estimates of relatedness coefficients, formulation of relationship-hypotheses, significance testing of alternative hypotheses, and maximum-likelihood sibship reconstruction techniques revealed evidence that alternative reproductive strategies may be present in natural populations of Wood Storks and Roseate Spoonbills, whereas relatedness of co-nestlings diagnosed in the Great Egrets did not deviate from a hypothesis of genetic monogamy. Specifically, under this analytical framework, inferred kinship relationships revealed that Great Egret nests contained full-sibling nestlings (100%), with the Roseate Spoonbill (RS) and Wood Stork (WS) exhibiting proportions of half-siblings (RS: 5%) and/or unrelated nestlings (RS: 24%; WS: 70%), patterns consistent with extra-pair paternity and conspecific brood parasitism, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that genetic monogamy occurs in Brazilian natural breeding colonies of the Great Egret, but is not the sole reproductive strategy employed by the Wood Stork and the Roseate Spoonbill. In fact, extra-pair paternity and conspecific brood parasitism were common in the latter two species, with a combined frequency of 7.5% and 11.3% in Roseate Spoonbill and Wood Stork, respectively. Although geographically co-distributed, differences among these species may be due to variation in their life histories. From a methodological standpoint, the approach implemented here, although not free from limitations, can have broad application for analyzing systems with limited genealogical information and/or in studying similarly challenging organisms in which obtaining genetic data on complete families is problematic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".