Are There Indirect Fitness Benefits of Female Extra-Pair Reproduction? Lifetime Reproductive Success of Within-Pair and Extra-Pair Offspring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forces driving extra-pair reproduction by socially monogamous females, and the resulting genetic polyandry, remain unclear. A testable prediction of the hypothesis that extra-pair reproduction partly reflects indirect selection on females is that extra-pair young (EPY) will be fitter than their within-pair young (WPY) maternal half-siblings. This prediction has not been comprehensively tested in a wild population, requiring data on the lifetime reproductive success (LRS) of maternal half-sib EPY and WPY. We used 17 years of genetic parentage data from song sparrows, Melospiza melodia, to compare the LRS of hatched EPY and WPY maternal half-siblings measured as their lifetime number of hatched offspring, recruited offspring, and hatched grandoffspring. EPY hatchlings were not significantly fitter than WPY hatchlings for any of three measures of LRS. Furthermore, opposite to prediction, EPY hatchlings tended to have lower LRS than their maternal half-sibling WPY hatchlings on average. EPY also tended to be less likely to survive to hatch than their maternal half-sibling WPY. Taken together, these results fail to support one key hypothesis explaining the evolution of genetic polyandry by socially monogamous females and suggest there may be weak indirect selection against female extra-pair reproduction in song sparrows.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".