Mate choice, reproductive success and inbreeding in white rhinoceros: New insights for conservation management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burchell, 1817) is essential for the effective conservation of this iconic species. By combining morphological, physiological and habitat data with paternity assignments of 104 known mother-offspring pairs collected over a period of 13 years, we provide the most comprehensive analysis of the mating system in this species. We show that while the overall mating system was promiscuous, and both males and females produced more offspring when mating with several partners, half of all females with multiple offspring were monogamous. Additionally, we find that mating and reproductive success varied significantly among territorial males in two independent sets of males. In females, however, variation in the mating and the reproductive success was not larger than expected by random demographic fluctuations. Horn size, testosterone metabolite concentration, territory size, habitat openness and the volume of preferred food within the territory did not seem to influence male mating or reproductive success. Moreover, there was no sign of inbreeding avoidance: females tended to mate more frequently with closely related males, and one daughter produced a progeny with her father. The lack of inbreeding avoidance, in combination with the skew in male reproductive success, the partial monogamy in females and the territorial-based mating system, jeopardizes the already low genetic variation in the species. Considering that the majority of populations are restricted to fenced reserves and private farms, we recommend taking preventive measures that aim to reduce inbreeding in white rhinoceros. A video abstract can be viewed here.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".