4.7 Article

No evidence of inbreeding avoidance despite demonstrated survival costs in a polygynous rodent

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 562-571

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05389.x

关键词

inbreeding; inbreeding avoidance; lethal equivalents; relatedness; reproductive success; yellow-bellied marmots

资金

  1. NSF
  2. American Indian Science & Engineering Society EPA
  3. Sigma Xi
  4. American Society of Mammalogists
  5. American Museum of Natural History
  6. UCLA
  7. National Geographic Society
  8. UCLA (Faculty Senate and the Division of Life Sciences)
  9. NSF [IDBR-0754247, DBI 0242960, 0731346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals are generally predicted to avoid inbreeding because of detrimental fitness effects. However, several recent studies have shown that limited inbreeding is tolerated by some vertebrate species. Here, we examine the costs and benefits of inbreeding in a largely polygynous rodent, the yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris). We use a pedigree constructed from 8 years of genetic data to determine the relatedness of all marmots in our study population and examine offspring survival, annual male reproductive success, relatedness between breeding pairs and the effects of group composition on likelihood of male reproduction to assess inbreeding in this species. We found decreased survival in inbred offspring, but equal net reproductive success among males that inbred and those that avoided it. Relatedness between breeding pairs was greater than that expected by chance, indicating that marmots do not appear to avoid breeding with relatives. Further, male marmots do not avoid inbreeding: males mate with equal frequency in groups composed of both related and unrelated females and in groups composed of only female relatives. Our results demonstrate that inbreeding can be tolerated in a polygynous species if the reproductive costs of inbreeding are low and individuals that mate indiscriminately do not suffer decreased reproductive success.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据