Genetic evidence for mixed broods and extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous biparental cichlid fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile young under parental care have a high potential for intermixing with other broods, which potentially increases the costs to the foster parents. Here, we examined for the first time the genetic composition of wild-caught broods of the convict cichlid (Amatitlania siquia), a socially monogamous biparental fish, for evidence of brood mixing and adoption. Our microsatellite genotyping data revealed that 79% of broods contained adopted young. Moreover, 25% of broods contained adopted sibsets likely arising from extra-pair matings, a phenomenon hitherto not documented for this species. Overall, adopted foreign fry and host fry in mixed broods were generally different in body length, as would be expected if they have different parents. However, fry from possible extra-pair matings were similar in body length to host fry, suggesting that they are of similar age. Our results are important because they reveal a very high prevalence and degree of brood mixing, and indicate that social monogamy does not necessarily lead to genetic monogamy in the convict cichlid in nature. These findings raise questions about potential brood-mixing mechanisms and the reproductive ecology (especially opportunities for polygamy in nature) of this important model species in the study of animal behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".