in

Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding

  • 1.

    Kokko, H. & Ots, I. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60, 467–475 (2006).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Blouin, S. F. & Blouin, M. Inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3, 230–233 (1988).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 201–206 (1996).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    Keller, L. & Waller, D. M. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 230–241 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Szulkin, M., Stopher, K. V., Pemberton, J. M. & Reid, J. M. Inbreeding avoidance, tolerance, or preference in animals? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 205–211 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer Associates, 1998).

  • 7.

    Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J. H. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 783–796 (2009).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Parker, G. A. in Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (eds Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A.) 123–166 (Academic, 1979).

  • 9.

    Duthie, A. B. & Reid, J. M. Evolution of inbreeding avoidance and inbreeding preference through mate choice among interacting relatives. Am. Nat. 188, 651–667 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Lehmann, L. & Perrin, N. Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am. Nat. 162, 638–652 (2003).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Kokko, H. Give one species the task to come up with a theory that spans them all: what good can come out of that? Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20171652 (2017).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Parker, G. A. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 361, 235–259 (2006).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Ihle, M. & Forstmeier, W. Revisiting the evidence for inbreeding avoidance in zebra finches. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1356–1362 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Annavi, G. et al. Heterozygosity–fitness correlations in a wild mammal population: accounting for parental and environmental effects. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2594–2609 (2014).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Arct, A., Drobniak, S. M. & Cichoń, M. Genetic similarity between mates predicts extrapair paternity—a meta-analysis of bird studies. Behav. Ecol. 26, 959–968 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Winternitz, J., Abbate, J. L., Huchard, E., Havlicek, J. & Garamszegi, L. Z. Patterns of MHC-dependent mate selection in humans and nonhuman primates: a meta-analysis. Mol. Ecol. 26, 668–688 (2017).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 17.

    Havlíček, J., Winternitz, J. & Roberts, S. C. Major histocompatibility complex-associated odour preferences and human mate choice: near and far horizons. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190260 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 18.

    Lizé, A., McKay, R. & Lewis, Z. Kin recognition in Drosophila: the importance of ecology and gut microbiota. ISME J. 8, 469–477 (2014).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    Heys, C. et al. Evidence that the microbiota counteracts male outbreeding strategy by inhibiting sexual signaling in females. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00029 (2018)

  • 20.

    Ala-Honkola, O., Manier, M. K., Lupold, S. & Pitnick, S. No evidence for postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 65, 2699–2705 (2011).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Mack, P. D., Hammock, B. A. & Promislow, D. E. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56, 1789–1795 (2002).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Loyau, A., Cornuau, J. H., Clobert, J. & Danchin, E. Incestuous sisters: mate preference for brothers over unrelated males in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 7, e51293 (2012).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Tan, C. K. W., Løvlie, H., Pizzari, T. & Wigby, S. No evidence for precopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 83, 1433–1441 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Robinson, S. P., Kennington, W. J. & Simmons, L. W. Preference for related mates in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 84, 1169–1176 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Ala-Honkola, O., Veltsos, P., Anderson, H. & Ritchie, M. G. Copulation duration, but not paternity share, potentially mediates inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila montana. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 2013–2021 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Nakamura, S. Inbreeding and rotational breeding of the parasitoid fly, Exorista japonica (Diptera: Tachinidae), for successive rearing. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 31, 433–441 (1996).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Aluja, M., Rull, J., Perez-Staples, D., Diaz-Fleischer, F. & Sivinski, J. Random mating among Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) adults of geographically distant and ecologically distinct populations in Mexico. Bull. Entomol. Res. 99, 207–214 (2009).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    Fischer, K. et al. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in a butterfly. Ethology 121, 977–984 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Mongue, A. J., Ahmed, M. Z., Tsai, M. V. & de Roode, J. C. Testing for cryptic female choice in monarch butterflies. Behav. Ecol. 26, 386–395 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Haikola, S., Singer, M. C. & Pen, I. Has inbreeding depression led to avoidance of sib mating in the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia)? Evol. Ecol. 18, 113–120 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Välimäki, P., Kivelä, S. M. & Mäenpää, M. I. Mating with a kin decreases female remating interval: a possible example of inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 2037–2047 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Lewis, Z. & Wedell, N. Male moths reduce sperm investment in relatives. Anim. Behav. 77, 1547–1550 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Harano, T. & Katsuki, M. Female seed beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis, remate more readily after mating with relatives. Anim. Behav. 83, 1007–1010 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Edvardsson, M., Rodríguez-Muñoz, R. & Tregenza, T. No evidence that female bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, use remating to reduce costs of inbreeding. Anim. Behav. 75, 1519–1524 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Müller, T. & Müller, C. Consequences of mating with siblings and nonsiblings on the reproductive success in a leaf beetle. Ecol. Evol. 6, 3185–3197 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Kuriwada, T., Kumano, N., Shiromoto, K. & Haraguchi, D. Inbreeding avoidance or tolerance? Comparison of mating behavior between mass-reared and wild strains of the sweet potato weevil. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 1483–1489 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Kuriwada, T., Kumano, N., Shiromoto, K. & Haraguchi, D. The effect of inbreeding on mating behaviour of West Indian sweet potato weevil Euscepes postfasciatus. Ethology 117, 822–828 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Tyler, F. & Tregenza, T. Why do so many flour beetle copulations fail? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 146, 199–206 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Mattey, S. N., Smiseth, P. T. & Herberstein, M. No inbreeding avoidance by female burying beetles regardless of whether they encounter males simultaneously or sequentially. Ethology 121, 1031–1038 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    De Luca, P. A. & Cocroft, R. B. The effects of age and relatedness on mating patterns in thornbug treehoppers: inbreeding avoidance or inbreeding tolerance? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1869–1875 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Poderoso, J. C. M. et al. Mating preferences and consequences of choosing sibling or non-sibling mates by females of the predator Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Fla. Entomol. 96, 419–423 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Huang, M. H. & Caillaud, M. C. Inbreeding avoidance by recognition of close kin in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J. Insect Sci. 12, 39 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Stockley, P. Sperm selection and genetic incompatibility: does relatedness of mates affect male success in sperm competition? Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. Ser. B 266, 1663–1669 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Weddle, C. B. et al. Cuticular hydrocarbons as a basis for chemosensory self-referencing in crickets: a potentially universal mechanism facilitating polyandry in insects. Ecol. Lett. 16, 346–353 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Simmons, L. M. Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Anim. Behav. 41, 493–501 (1991).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Bretman, A., Newcombe, D. & Tregenza, T. Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol. Ecol. 18, 3340–3345 (2009).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Bretman, A., Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. Molecular evidence of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 159–164 (2004).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 48.

    Simmons, L. W. Kin recognition and its influence on mating preferences of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de Geer). Anim. Behav. 38, 68–77 (1989).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Simmons, L. W., Beveridge, M., Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3817–3824 (2006).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Simmons, L. W. & Thomas, M. L. No postcopulatory response to inbreeding by male crickets. Biol. Lett. 4, 183–185 (2008).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Tuni, C., Beveridge, M. & Simmons, L. W. Female crickets assess relatedness during mate guarding and bias storage of sperm towards unrelated males. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1261–1268 (2013).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Haneke-Reinders, M., Reinhold, K. & Schmoll, T. Sex-specific repeatabilities and effects of relatedness and mating status on copulation duration in an acridid grasshopper. Ecol. Evol. 7, 3414–3424 (2017).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 53.

    Teng, Z. Q. & Kang, L. Egg-hatching benefits gained by polyandrous female locusts are not due to the fertilization advantage of nonsibling males. Evolution 61, 470–476 (2007).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 54.

    Bouchebti, S., Durier, V., Pasquaretta, C., Rivault, C. & Lihoreau, M. Subsocial cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea mate indiscriminately with kin despite high costs of inbreeding. PLoS ONE 11, e0162548 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Lihoreau, M. & Rivault, C. German cockroach males maximize their inclusive fitness by avoiding mating with kin. Anim. Behav. 80, 303–309 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Lihoreau, M., Zimmer, C. & Rivault, C. Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav. Ecol. 18, 880–887 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    Lihoreau, M., Zimmer, C. & Rivault, C. Mutual mate choice: when it pays both sexes to avoid inbreeding. PLoS ONE 3, e3365 (2008).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Hedlund, K., Ek, H., Gunnarsson, T. & Svegborn, C. Mate choice and male competition in Orchesella cincta (Collembola). Experientia 46, 524–526 (1990).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    Palmer, C. A. & Edmands, S. Mate choice in the face of both inbreeding and outbreeding depression in the intertidal copepod Tigriopus californicus. Mar. Biol. 136, 693–698 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 60.

    Winsor, G. L. & Innes, D. J. Sexual reproduction in Daphnia pulex (Crustacea: Cladocera): observations on male mating behaviour and avoidance of inbreeding. Freshwat. Biol. 47, 441–450 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    Fortin, M., Vitet, C., Souty-Grosset, C. & Richard, F. J. How do familiarity and relatedness influence mate choice in Armadillidium vulgare? PLoS ONE 13, e0209893 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 62.

    Tuni, C., Mestre, L., Berger-Tal, R., Lubin, Y. & Bilde, T. Mate choice in naturally inbred spiders: testing the role of relatedness. Anim. Behav. 157, 27–33 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 63.

    Ruch, J., Heinrich, L., Bilde, T. & Schneider, J. M. The evolution of social inbreeding mating systems in spiders: limited male mating dispersal and lack of pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in a subsocial predecessor. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98, 851–859 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    Bilde, T., Lubin, Y., Smith, D., Schneider, J. M. & Maklakov, A. A. The transition to social inbred mating systems in spiders: role of inbreeding tolerance in a subsocial predecessor. Evolution 59, 160–174 (2005).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 65.

    Welke, K. W. & Schneider, J. M. Males of the orb-web spider Argiope bruennichi sacrifice themselves to unrelated females. Biol. Lett. 6, 585–588 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Welke, K. & Schneider, J. M. Inbreeding avoidance through cryptic female choice in the cannibalistic orb-web spider Argiope lobata. Behav. Ecol. 20, 1056–1062 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 67.

    Chen, Z. et al. Inbreeding produces trade-offs between maternal fecundity and offspring survival in a monandrous spider. Anim. Behav. 132, 253–259 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 68.

    Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. Outbred embryos rescue inbred half-siblings in mixed-paternity broods of live-bearing females. Nature 439, 201–203 (2006).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 69.

    McCarthy, T. M. & Sih, A. Relatedness of mates influences mating behaviour and reproductive success of the hermaphroditic freshwater snail Physa gyrina. Evol. Ecol. Res. 10, 77–94 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • 70.

    Facon, B., Ravigné, V. & Goudet, J. Experimental evidence of inbreeding avoidance in the hermaphroditic snail Physa acuta. Evol. Ecol. 20, 395–406 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 71.

    Baur, B. & Baur, A. Random mating with respect to relatedness in the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum. Invertebr. Biol. 116, 294–298 (1997).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 72.

    Ng, T. P. T. & Johannesson, K. No precopulatory inbreeding avoidance in the intertidal snail Littorina saxatilis. J. Mollusca. Stud. 82, 213–215 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 73.

    Burgess, S. C., Sander, L. & Bueno, M. How relatedness between mates influences reproductive success: an experimental analysis of self-fertilization and biparental inbreeding in a marine bryozoan. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11353–11366 (2019).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 74.

    Peters, A. & Michiels, N. K. Evidence for lack of inbreeding avoidance by selective mating in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Invertebr. Biol. 115, 99–103 (1996).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 75.

    Boyd, S. K. & Blaustein, A. R. Familiarity and inbreeding avoidance in the gray-tailed vole (Microtus canicaudus). J. Mammal. 66, 348–352 (1985).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 76.

    Bollinger, E. K., Harper, S. J., Kramer, J. M. & Barrett, G. W. Avoidance of inbreeding in the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J. Mammal. 72, 419–421 (1991).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 77.

    Sun, P., Zhu, W. & Zhao, X. Opposite-sex sibling recognition in adult root vole, Microtus Oeconomus pallas: phenotype matching or association. Pol. J. Ecol. 56, 701–708 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • 78.

    Fadao, T., Ruyong, S. & Tingzheng, W. Does low fecundity reflect kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus)? Can. J. Zool. 80, 2150–2155 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 79.

    Fadao, T., Tingzheng, W. & Yajun, Z. Inbreeding avoidance and mate choice in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus). Can. J. Zool. 78, 2119–2125 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 80.

    Yu, X., Sun, R. & Fang, J. Effect of kinship on social behaviors in Brandt’s voles (Microtus brandti). J. Ethol. 22, 17–22 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 81.

    Lucia, K. E. & Keane, B. A field test of the effects of familiarity and relatedness on social associations and reproduction in prairie voles. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 13–27 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 82.

    Gavish, L., Hofmann, J. E. & Getz, L. L. Sibling recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim. Behav. 32, 362–366 (1984).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 83.

    Ylӧnen, H. & Haapakoski, M. Risk of inbreeding: problem of mate choice and fitness effects? Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 62, 155–161 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 84.

    Kruczek, M. & Golas, A. Behavioural development of conspecific odour preferences in bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus. Behav. Process. 64, 31–39 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 85.

    Lemaître, J.-F., Ramm, S. A., Hurst, J. L. & Stockley, P. Inbreeding avoidance behaviour of male bank voles in relation to social status. Anim. Behav. 83, 453–457 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 86.

    Kruczek, M. Recognition of kin in bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Physiol. Behav. 90, 483–489 (2007).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 87.

    Rao, X., Zhang, J.-X., Liu, D. & Cong, L. Kinship alters the effects of forced cohabitation on body weight, mate choice and fitness in the rat-like hamster Tscheskia triton. Curr. Zool. 55, 41–47 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 88.

    Mateo, J. M. & Johnston, R. E. Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 695–700 (2000).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 89.

    Grau, H. J. Kin recognition in white-footed deermice (Peromyscus leucopus). Anim. Behav. 30, 497–505 (1982).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 90.

    Pillay, N. Father–daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mamm. Biol. 67, 212–218 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 91.

    Pillay, N. & Rymer, T. L. Preference for outbreeding in inbred Littledale’s whistling rats Parotomys littledalei. Evol. Biol. 44, 21–30 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 92.

    Pillay, N. Inbreeding in Littledale’s whistling rat Parotomys littledalei. J. Exp. Zool. 293, 171–178 (2002).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 93.

    Firman, R. C. & Simmons, L. W. Polyandry facilitates postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Evolution 62, 603–611 (2008).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 94.

    Firman, R. C. & Simmons, L. W. Gametic interactions promote inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Ecol. Lett. 18, 937–943 (2015).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 95.

    Barnard, C. J. & Fitzsimons, J. Kin recognition and mate choice in mice: the effects of kinship, familiarity and social interference on intersexual interaction. Anim. Behav. 36, 1078–1090 (1988).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 96.

    Krackow, S. & Matuschak, B. Mate choice for non-siblings in wild house mice: evidence from a choice test and a reproductive test. Ethology 88, 99–108 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 97.

    Musolf, K., Hoffmann, F. & Penn, D. J. Ultrasonic courtship vocalizations in wild house mice, Mus musculus musculus. Anim. Behav. 79, 757–764 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 98.

    Bolton, J. L. et al. Kin discrimination in prepubescent and adult Long-Evans rats. Behav. Process. 90, 415–419 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 99.

    Valsecchi, P., Razzoli, M. & Choleris, E. Influence of kinship and familiarity on the social and reproductive behaviour of female Mongolian gerbils. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 14, 239–253 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 100.

    Smith, B. A. & Block, M. L. Male saliva cues and female social choice in Mongolian gerbils. Physiol. Behav. 50, 379–384 (1991).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 101.

    Ågren, G. Two laboratory experiments on inbreeding avoidance in the Mongolian gerbil. Behav. Process. 6, 291–297 (1981).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 102.

    Ågren, G. Incest avoidance and bonding between siblings in gerbils. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14, 161–169 (1984).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 103.

    Ågren, G. Alternative mating strategies in the Mongolian gerbil. Behaviour 91, 229–243 (1984).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 104.

    Heth, G., Todrank, J., Begall, S., Wegner, R. E. & Burda, H. Genetic relatedness discrimination in eusocial Cryptomys anselli mole-rats, Bathyergidae, Rodentia. Folia Zool. 53, 269–278 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • 105.

    Bennett, N. C., Faulkes, C. G. & Molteno, A. J. Reproductive suppression in subordinate, non-breeding female Damaraland mole-rats: two components to a lifetime of socially induced infertility. Proc. Biol. Sci. 263, 1599–1603 (1996).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 106.

    Carter, S. N., Goldman, B. D., Goldman, S. L. & Freeman, D. A. Social cues elicit sexual behavior in subordinate Damaraland mole-rats independent of gonadal status. Horm. Behav. 65, 14–21 (2014).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 107.

    Greeff, J. M. & Bennett, N. C. Causes and consequences of incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding mole-rat, Cryptomys darlingi (Bathyergidae). Ecol. Lett. 3, 318–328 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 108.

    Clarke, F. M. & Faulkes, C. G. Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proc. Biol. Sci. 266, 1995–2002 (1999).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 109.

    Marcinkowska, U. M., Moore, F. R. & Rantala, M. J. An experimental test of the Westermarck effect: sex differences in inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. 24, 842–845 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 110.

    Lass-Hennemann, J. et al. Effects of stress on human mating preferences: stressed individuals prefer dissimilar mates. Proc. Biol. Sci. 277, 2175–2183 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 111.

    Lass-Hennemann, J. et al. Effect of facial self-resemblance on the startle response and subjective ratings of erotic stimuli in heterosexual men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 40, 1007–1014 (2011).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 112.

    Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C. & Lalumiere, M. L. Kin recognition: evidence that humans can perceive both positive and negative relatedness. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 1472–1478 (2012).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 113.

    Kocsor, F., Rezneki, R., Juhasz, S. & Bereczkei, T. Preference for facial self-resemblance and attractiveness in human mate choice. Arch. Sex. Behav. 40, 1263–1270 (2011).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 114.

    Finke, J. B., Zhang, X., Best, D. R., Lass-Hennemann, J. & Schächinger, H. Self-resemblance modulates processing of socio-emotional pictures in a context-sensitive manner. J. Psychophysiol. 33, 127–138 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 115.

    Fraley, R. C. & Marks, M. J. Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 1202–1212 (2010).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 116.

    Henkel, S. & Setchell, J. M. Group and kin recognition via olfactory cues in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1527 (2018)

  • 117.

    Pfefferle, D., Kazem, A. J., Brockhausen, R. R., Ruiz-Lambides, A. V. & Widdig, A. Monkeys spontaneously discriminate their unfamiliar paternal kin under natural conditions using facial cues. Curr. Biol. 24, 1806–1810 (2014).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 118.

    Pfefferle, D., Ruiz-Lambides, A. V. & Widdig, A. Male rhesus macaques use vocalizations to distinguish female maternal, but not paternal, kin from non-kin. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1677–1686 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 119.

    Erhart, E. M., Coelho, A. M. Jr. & Bramblett, C. A. Kin recognition by paternal half-siblings in captive Papio cynocephalus. Am. J. Primatol. 43, 147–157 (1997).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 120.

    Craul, M., Zimmermann, E. & Radespiel, U. First experimental evidence for female mate choice in a nocturnal primate. Primates 45, 271–274 (2004).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 121.

    Mossotti, R. H. et al. Reactions of female cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) to urine volatiles from males of varying genetic distance. Zoo Biol. 37, 229–235 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 122.

    Hamilton, J. & Vonk, J. Do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer family? Behav. Process. 119, 123–134 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 123.

    Orihuela, A. & Vázquez, R. Mating preferences of Saint Croix rams to related or unrelated ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 83, 82–84 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 124.

    Fracasso, G., Tuliozi, B., Hoi, H. & Griggio, M. Can house sparrows recognize familiar or kin-related individuals by scent? Curr. Zool. 65, 53–59 (2019).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 125.

    Schielzeth, H., Burger, C., Bolund, E. & Forstmeier, W. Assortative versus disassortative mating preferences of female zebra finches based on self-referent phenotype matching. Anim. Behav. 76, 1927–1934 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 126.

    Miller, D. B. Long-term recognition of father’s song by female zebra finches. Nature 280, 389–391 (1979).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 127.

    Burley, N., Minor, C. & Strachan, C. Social preference of zebra finches for siblings, cousins and non-kin. Anim. Behav. 39, 775–784 (1990).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 128.

    Kato, Y., Hasegawa, T. & Okanoya, K. Song preference of female Bengalese finches as measured by operant conditioning. J. Ethol. 28, 447–453 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 129.

    Schubert, C. A., Ratcliffe, L. M. & Boag, P. T. A test of inbreeding avoidance in the zebra finch. Ethology 82, 265–274 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 130.

    Slater, P. J. B. & Clements, F. A. Incestuous mating in zebra finches. Z. Tierpsychol. 57, 201–208 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 131.

    Arct, A., Rutkowska, J., Martyka, R., Drobniak, S. M. & Cichon, M. Kin recognition and adjustment of reproductive effort in zebra finches. Biol. Lett. 6, 762–764 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 132.

    Bonadonna, F. & Sanz-Aguilar, A. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim. Behav. 84, 509–513 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 133.

    Vuarin, P. et al. No evidence for prezygotic postcopulatory avoidance of kin despite high inbreeding depression. Mol. Ecol. 27, 5252–5262 (2018).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 134.

    Bateson, P. Preferences for cousins in Japanese quail. Nature 295, 236–237 (1982).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 135.

    Løvlie, H., Gillingham, M. A., Worley, K., Pizzari, T. & Richardson, D. S. Cryptic female choice favours sperm from major histocompatibility complex-dissimilar males. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20131296 (2013).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 136.

    Pizzari, T., Lovlie, H. & Cornwallis, C. K. Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 2115–2121 (2004).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 137.

    Denk, A. G., Holzmann, A., Peters, A., Vermeirssen, E. L. M. & Kempenaers, B. Paternity in mallards: effects of sperm quality and female sperm selection for inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. 16, 825–833 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 138.

    Jansson, N., Uller, T. & Olsson, M. Female dragons, Ctenophorus pictus, do not prefer scent from unrelated males. Aust. J. Zool. 53, 279–282 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 139.

    Ala-Honkola, O., Tuominen, L. & Lindström, K. Inbreeding avoidance in a poeciliid fish (Heterandria formosa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1403–1414 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 140.

    Vega-Trejo, R., Head, M. L. & Jennions, M. D. Evidence for inbreeding depression in a species with limited opportunity for maternal effects. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1398–1404 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 141.

    Pitcher, T. E., Rodd, F. H. & Rowe, L. Female choice and the relatedness of mates in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): mate choice and inbreeding depression. Genetica 134, 137–146 (2008).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 142.

    Daniel, M. J. & Rodd, F. H. Female guppies can recognize kin but only avoid incest when previously mated. Behav. Ecol. 27, 55–61 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 143.

    Fitzpatrick, L. J., Gasparini, C., Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Evans, J. P. Male–female relatedness and patterns of male reproductive investment in guppies. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140166 (2014).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 144.

    Viken, A., Fleming, I. A. & Rosenqvist, G. Premating avoidance of inbreeding absent in female guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 112, 716–723 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 145.

    Gasparini, C. & Pilastro, A. Cryptic female preference for genetically unrelated males is mediated by ovarian fluid in the guppy. Proc. Biol. Sci. 278, 2495–2501 (2011).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 146.

    Evans, J. P., Brooks, R. C., Zajitschek, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. Does genetic relatedness of mates influence competitive fertilization success in guppies? Evolution 62, 2929–2935 (2008).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 147.

    Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Evans, J. P. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in guppies. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2585–2594 (2014).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 148.

    Speechley, E. M., Gasparini, C. & Evans, J. P. Female guppies increase their propensity for polyandry as an inbreeding avoidance strategy. Anim. Behav. 157, 87–93 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 149.

    Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr. Biol. 17, 225–229 (2007).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 150.

    Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., Baldauf, S. A. & Kullmann, H. Direct familiarity does not alter mating preference for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology 113, 1107–1112 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 151.

    Thünken, T., Meuthen, D., Bakker, T. C. M. & Baldauf, S. A. A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 2959–2964 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 152.

    Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M. & Baldauf, S. A. ‘Armpit effect’ in an African cichlid fish: self-referent kin recognition in mating decisions of male Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 99–104 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 153.

    Frommen, J. G. & Bakker, T. C. Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks. Biol. Lett. 2, 232–235 (2006).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 154.

    Butts, I. A., Johnson, K., Wilson, C. C. & Pitcher, T. E. Ovarian fluid enhances sperm velocity based on relatedness in lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush. Theriogenology 78, 2105–2109 e2101 (2012).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 155.

    Gerlach, G. & Lysiak, N. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in zebrafish, Danio rerio, is based on phenotype matching. Anim. Behav. 71, 1371–1377 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 156.

    Kueffer, C. et al. Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 493–494 (2011).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 157.

    Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988).

  • 158.

    Blouin, M. S. DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 503–511 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 159.

    Brown, J. L. & Eklund, A. Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: an integrative review. Am. Nat. 143, 435–461 (1994).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 160.

    Penn, D. J. The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108, 1–21 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 161.

    Kokko, H. & Mappes, J. Sexual selection when fertilization is not guaranteed. Evolution 59, 1876–1885 (2005).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 162.

    Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R. & Rushton, L. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Stat. Med. 26, 4544–4562 (2007).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 163.

    Nakagawa, S. & Santos, E. S. A. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol. Ecol. 26, 1253–1274 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 164.

    Senior, A. M. et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97, 3293–3299 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 165.

    Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. B 264, 69–75 (1997).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 166.

    Carleial, R. et al. Temporal dynamics of competitive fertilization in social groups of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) shed new light on avian sperm competition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20200081 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 167.

    Antfolk, J. et al. Opposition to inbreeding between close kin reflects inclusive fitness costs. Front. Psychol. 9, 2101 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 168.

    Kresanov, P. et al. Intergenerational incest aversion: self-reported sexual arousal and disgust to hypothetical sexual contact with family members. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39, 664–674 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 169.

    Richardson, J., Comin, P. & Smiseth, P. T. Inbred burying beetles suffer fitness costs from making poor decisions. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180419 (2018).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 170.

    Long, T. A. F., Rowe, L. & Agrawal, A. F. The effects of selective history and environmental heterogeneity on inbreeding depression in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 181, 532–544 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 171.

    Johnson, A. M. et al. Inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 116, 448–457 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 172.

    Barson, N., Cable, J. & Van Oosterhout, C. Population genetic analysis of microsatellite variation of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in Trinidad and Tobago: evidence for a dynamic source–sink metapopulation structure, founder events and population bottlenecks. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 485–497 (2009).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 173.

    Lindholm, A. K. et al. Invasion success and genetic diversity of introduced populations of guppies Poecilia reticulata in Australia. Mol. Ecol. 14, 3671–3682 (2005).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 174.

    Hosken, D. J. & Blanckenhorn, W. U. Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts. Behav. Ecol. 10, 462–464 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 175.

    Duthie, A. B. & Reid, J. M. What happens after inbreeding avoidance? Inbreeding by rejected relatives and the inclusive fitness benefit of inbreeding avoidance. PLoS ONE 10, e0125140 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 176.

    Taylor, H. R. The use and abuse of genetic marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding. Ecol. Evol. 5, 3140–3150 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 177.

    Galla, S. J. et al. A comparison of pedigree, genetic and genomic estimates of relatedness for informing pairing decisions in two critically endangered birds: implications for conservation breeding programmes worldwide. Evol. Appl. 13, 991–1008 (2020).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 178.

    Charlesworth, B. & Hughes, K. A. Age-specific inbreeding depression and components of genetic variance in relation to the evolution of senescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 93, 6140 (1996).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 179.

    Janicke, T., Vellnow, N., Sarda, V. & David, P. Sex-specific inbreeding depression depends on the strength of male–male competition. Evolution 67, 2861–2875 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 180.

    Armbruster, P. & Reed, D. H. Inbreeding depression in benign and stressful environments. Heredity (Edinb.) 95, 235–242 (2005).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 181.

    Lüpold, S., de Boer, R. A., Evans, J. P., Tomkins, J. L. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. How sperm competition shapes the evolution of testes and sperm: a meta-analysis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20200064 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 182.

    Martin-Wintle, M. S. et al. Free mate choice enhances conservation breeding in the endangered giant panda. Nat. Commun. 6, 10125 (2015).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 183.

    Martin-Wintle, M. S., Wintle, N. J. P., Díez-León, M., Swaisgood, R. R. & Asa, C. S. Improving the sustainability of ex situ populations with mate choice. Zoo Biol. 38, 119–132 (2019).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 184.

    Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 185.

    Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan–a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 186.

    Pick, J. L., Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A. & Price, S. Reproducible, flexible and high-throughput data extraction from primary literature: the metaDigitise R package. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 426–431 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 187.

    R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012).

  • 188.

    Hedges, L. & Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis (Academic, 1985).

  • 189.

    Rosenberg, M. S., Rothstein, H. R. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) 61–71 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).

  • 190.

    Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 191.

    Del Re, A. compute.es: compute effect sizes, R package version 0.2-2 (2013).

  • 192.

    Michonneau, F., Brown, J. W., Winter, D. J. & Fitzjohn, R. rotl: an R package to interact with the Open Tree of Life data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1476–1481 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 193.

    Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 85, 935–956 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 194.

    Higgins, J. & Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

  • 195.

    Kossmeier, M., Tran, U. S. & Voracek, M. metaviz: forest plots, funnel plots, and visual funnel plot inference for meta-analysis, R package version 0.3.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metaviz (2018).

  • 196.

    Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R. & Rushton, L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 991–996 (2008).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 197.

    Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315, 629–634 (1997).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 198.

    Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 199.

    Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463 (2000).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 200.

    Shi, L. & Lin, L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Med. (Baltim.) 98, e15987 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 201.

    Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. A nonparametric ‘trim and fill’ method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 89–98 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • 202.

    Møller, A. & Jennions, M. D. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132, 492–500 (2002).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 203.

    Szulkin, M. & Sheldon, B. C. The environmental dependence of inbreeding depression in a wild bird population. PLoS ONE 2, e1027 (2007).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 204.

    Zeh, D. W. & Zeh, J. A. Reproductive mode and speciation: the viviparity-driven conflict hypothesis. Bioessays 22, 938–946 (2000).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 205.

    Waser, P. M., Austad, S. N. & Keane, B. When should animals tolerate inbreeding? Am. Nat. 128, 529–537 (1986).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 206.

    Puurtinen, M. Mate choice for optimal (k)inbreeding. Evolution 65, 1501–1505 (2011).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 207.

    Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71–73 (2002).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 208.

    Birkhead, T. R. & Pizzari, T. Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 262–273 (2002).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 209.

    Duthie, A. B., Bocedi, G., Germain, R. R. & Reid, J. M. Evolution of precopulatory and post-copulatory strategies of inbreeding avoidance and associated polyandry. J. Evol. Biol. 31, 31–45 (2018).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 210.

    Barry, K. L. & Kokko, H. Male mate choice: why sequential choice can make its evolution difficult. Anim. Behav. 80, 163–169 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Robotic solution for disinfecting food production plants wins agribusiness prize

    Undergraduates explore practical applications of artificial intelligence