Cited by 96Animal Behavior and ReproductionAvian ecology and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Heterozygosity-based assortative mating in blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus): implications for the evolution of mate choice

Open access
García-Navas, Vicente, Ortego, Joaquín, Sanz, Juan José·2009·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

The general hypothesis of mate choice based on non-additive genetic traits suggests that individuals would gain important benefits by choosing genetically dissimilar mates (compatible mate hypothesis) and/or more heterozygous mates (heterozygous mate hypothesis). In this study, we test these hypotheses in a socially monogamous bird, the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus). We found no evidence for a relatedness-based mating pattern, but heterozygosity was positively correlated between social mates, suggesting that blue tits may base their mating preferences on partner's heterozygosity. We found evidence that the observed heterozygosity-based assortative mating could be maintained by both direct and indirect benefits. Heterozygosity reflected individual quality in both sexes: egg production and quality increased with female heterozygosity while more heterozygous males showed higher feeding rates during the brood-rearing period. Further, estimated offspring heterozygosity correlated with both paternal and maternal heterozygosity, suggesting that mating with heterozygous individuals can increase offspring genetic quality. Finally, plumage crown coloration was associated with male heterozygosity, and this could explain unanimous mate preferences for highly heterozygous and more ornamented individuals. Overall, this study suggests that non-additive genetic traits may play an important role in the evolution of mating preferences and offers empirical support to the resolution of the lek paradox from the perspective of the heterozygous mate hypothesis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2009.0417

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Females probably gain direct benefits by choosing an outbred male over an inbred male.

    “females probably gain direct benefits by choosing an outbred (i.e. more heterozygous) male over an inbred (i.e. less heterozygous) male (e.g. because the former has smaller territory sizes [14–16] or contributes less to parental care [17] than the latter).”

    From ‘Out of tune’: consequences of inbreeding on bird song (2016) · cites this paper as [17]

    The citation is attached to the claim that outbred, more heterozygous males contribute less to parental care than inbred males. The Discussion (section 4) says the opposite: male genetic diversity was positively associated with parental investment, so females would receive better paternal care from highly heterozygous males. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Choosing based on heterozygosity can provide direct benefits, for example through larger territory sizes or increased parental care.

    “Additionally, choosing based on heterozygosity can provide direct benefits, for example through larger territory sizes [14–16] or increased parental care [17].”

    From ‘Out of tune’: consequences of inbreeding on bird song (2016) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 96

Authors
García-Navas, V., Ortego, J., & Sanz, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales, Facultad de Medio Ambiente, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida Carlos III s/n, E-45071 Toledo, Spain
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Corresponding author
Sanz, Juan José
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2009-05-27
Volume
276
Issue
1669
Pages
2931-2940
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2168505426
Cited by
96
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
assortative mating, heterozygosity, mate choice, blue tit, social monogamy, egg production, plumage coloration, lek paradox, direct and indirect benefits, individual quality
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Female, Heterozygote, Homozygote, Male, Reproduction, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Songbirds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review