Extra-pair paternity is not driven by inbreeding avoidance and does not affect provisioning rates in a cooperatively breeding bird, the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many socially monogamous bird species, both sexes regularly engage in mating outside their pair bond. Although the benefits of extra-pair (EP) mating behavior are clear and well established for males, such as an increase in the number of sired offspring, the benefits of EP mating behavior to females are less clear. A dominant theory for the incidence of EP mating is that socially monogamous females can improve the genetic quality of their offspring and avoid the costs of inbreeding through EP mating. In addition, in cooperatively breeding species, the theory of “parental care” predicts that females obtain additional help for their offspring through EP matings. Here, we examined evidence for both the inbreeding avoidance and parental care hypotheses in the cooperatively breeding noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala). Overall, EP mating occurred in 27% of broods, with 14% of offspring sired by males other than the identified pair-bonded male. There was a strong tendency to avoid pairing with genetically related individuals, with 86% of breeding pairs being significantly less related to each other than the general population. The occurrence of EP paternity was independent of the degree of relatedness between the pair. Provisioning patterns in relation to EP mating was not consistent with the “parental care” hypothesis and EP males did not contribute to the care of broods. These results demonstrate that in this system, there is no evidence that EP mating might function as a mechanism to reduce the costs of inbreeding depression or to gain benefits of extra helpers.
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".