CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Animal Behavior and ReproductionMarine animal studies overviewGenetic diversity and population structure

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTAL RELATEDNESS AND MALE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS IN THE ANTARCTIC FUR SEAL ARCTOCEPHALUS GAZELLA

Hoffman, Joseph. I., Boyd, Ian L., Amos, William·2004·Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00492.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent genetic studies of natural populations have shown that heterozygosity and other genetic estimates of parental relatedness correlate with a wide variety of fitness traits, from juvenile survival and parasite resistance to male reproductive success. Many of these traits involve health and survival, where the underlying mechanism may involve changes in the effectiveness of the immune system. However, for traits such as reproductive success, the likely mechanisms remain less obvious. In this paper, we examine the relationship between heterozygosity and a range of traits that contribute to male reproductive success, including time spent on territories and competitiveness. Our analysis is based on observational and genetic data from eight consecutive breeding seasons at a colony of the Antarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus gazella. Overall, male reproductive success was found to correlate strongly with internal relatedness (IR, a form of heterozygosity). When different components of success were analyzed, we found that IR correlates independently with reproductive longevity, time spent ashore, and competitive ability per unit mating opportunity on the study beach, with more heterozygous males being more successful. Behavioral observations were sufficiently detailed to allow examination of how daily mean IR values for males present on the beach varied within seasons and from year to year. Again, significant variation was found both among and within seasons, with more homozygous m…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00492.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 [16]

  • 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 [16]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. 10.1038/422035a · DOI
  2. Allen P. J., 1995, Mol. Ecol, 4, 653, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.1995.tb00266.x · DOI
  3. Amos W., 1991, Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. Spec. Issue, 13, 99
  4. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1751 · DOI
  5. Arnould J. P. Y., 1997, J. Zool, 241, 649, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb05739.x · DOI
  6. F. Balloux, W. Amos, and T. Coulson . 2004 . Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations ? Mol. Ecol. In press. · DOI
  7. Bonner W. N., 1958, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond, 130, 241, 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1958.tb00571.x · DOI
  8. Bonner W. N., 1968, Br. Antarc. Surv. Sci. Rep, 56, 1
  9. Boyd I. L., 1991, J. Reprod. Fertil, 91, 637, 10.1530/jrf.0.0910637 · DOI
  10. 10.2307/1382714 · DOI
  11. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041171.x · DOI
  12. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.18.1.237 · DOI
  13. 10.1554/0014-3820(2003)057[0971:MMOIAM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  14. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0363 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/2640828 · DOI
  16. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0321 · DOI
  17. 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00205.x · DOI
  18. 10.2307/2640453 · DOI
  19. Crawley M. J., 2002, Statistical computing, an introduction to data analysis using S-plus
  20. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00717.x · DOI
  21. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99206.x · DOI
  22. 10.1016/0003-3472(78)90013-1 · DOI
  23. Doidge D. W., 1984, J. Zool, 202, 449, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1984.tb05095.x · DOI
  24. Duck C. D., 1990, J. Zool, 222, 103, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1990.tb04032.x · DOI
  25. Dunbar R. I. M., 1982, Perspectives in ethology, 5, 385
  26. 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1999.00239.x · DOI
  27. Falconer D. S., 1996, Introduction to quantitative genetics
  28. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1997.tb00661.x · DOI
  29. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01186.x · DOI
  30. Genstat 5 Committee, 1995, Genstat for Windows reference manual supplement
  31. Goldstein D. B., 1995, Genetics, 139, 463, 10.1093/genetics/139.1.463 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02467-9 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0 · DOI
  34. 10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[0518:SIDIAD]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/s002650050059 · DOI
  36. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01644.x · DOI
  37. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1640 · DOI
  38. 10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[1256:EODAMM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  39. 10.2307/2336325 · DOI
  40. 10.1554/02-530 · DOI
  41. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1937 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80538-X · DOI
  43. Houle D., 1989, Genetics, 123, 789, 10.1093/genetics/123.4.789 · DOI
  44. 10.2307/1390807 · DOI
  45. 10.1126/science.7939661 · DOI
  46. 10.1038/372356a0 · DOI
  47. Lacy R. C., 1993, The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding: theoretical and empirical perspectives, 352
  48. Lunn N. J., 1993, Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond, 66, 115
  49. 10.2307/5260 · DOI
  50. Lynch M., 1998, Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits
  51. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1992.tb00382.x · DOI
  52. 10.1126/science.282.5395.1884 · DOI
  53. 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00109.x · DOI
  54. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x · DOI
  55. 10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80110-8 · DOI
  56. 10.1073/pnas.060284797 · DOI
  57. Merila J., 2003, Ann. Zool. Fenn, 40, 269
  58. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.15.1.479 · DOI
  59. 10.1007/s002650050077 · DOI
  60. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1351 · DOI
  61. 10.2307/2408908 · DOI
  62. 10.1098/rstb.1994.0154 · DOI
  63. 10.2307/2409206 · DOI
  64. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2480 · DOI
  65. 10.1007/BF00292558 · DOI
  66. 10.1038/33136 · DOI
  67. 10.1098/rspb.2002.1966 · DOI
  68. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1192 · DOI
  69. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00373.x · DOI
  70. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00930.x · DOI
  71. Tsitrone A., 2001, Genetics, 159, 1845, 10.1093/genetics/159.4.1845 · DOI
  72. Walsh P. S., 1991, BioTechniques, 10, 506
  73. 10.2307/2410058 · DOI
  74. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00705.x · DOI
  75. Wright S., 1969, Evolution and the genetics of populations: the theory of gene frequencies

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hoffman, J. I., Boyd, I. L., & Amos, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • British Antarctic Survey (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Hoffman, Joseph. I.
  • Boyd, Ian L.
  • Amos, William
ORCID
Venue
Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-09
Volume
58
Issue
9
Pages
2087-2099
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00492.x
OpenAlex
W1994005727
Cited by
88
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 4017 d)
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • Natural Environment Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
heterozygosity, male reproductive success, Antarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus gazella, inbreeding depression, heterosis, territoriality, reproductive longevity, mating competitiveness
MeSH terms
Animals, Antarctic Regions, Competitive Behavior, Gene Frequency, Genetics, Population, Heterozygote, Inbreeding, Longevity, Male, Models, Genetic, Reproduction, Territoriality, Time Factors, Linear Models, Microsatellite Repeats, Observation, Fur Seals

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