Re-mating across years and intralineage polygyny are associated with greater than expected levels of inbreeding in wild red deer

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 2457-2469

  Stopher, K V ^a,b   Nussey, D H ^a   Clutton Brock, T H ^c   Guinness, F ^c   Morris, A ^a   Pemberton, J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervus elaphus; Dispersal; Genetic structure; Inbreeding avoidance; Philopatry; Relatedness

Indexed keywords

COMMON ANCESTRY; DEER; DISPERSAL; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC STRUCTURE; INBREEDING AVOIDANCE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PATERNITY; PHILOPATRY; POLYGYNY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RUTTING; WILD POPULATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DEER; FEMALE; GENETICS; INBREEDING; MALE; PEDIGREE; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; DEER; FEMALE; INBREEDING; MALE; PEDIGREE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

CERVUS ELAPHUS; MAMMALIA;

EID: 84869237969     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02626.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Albon, S.D., Staines, H.J., Guinness, F.E. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. 1992. Density-dependent changes in the spacing behavior of female kin in red deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 131-137.
2. Amos, B., Twiss, S., Pomeroy, P. & Anderson, S. 1995. Evidence for mate fidelity in the gray seal. Science 268: 1897-1899.
3. Atkinson, B. 2008. kinship: mixed-effects Cox models, sparse matrices, and modeling data from large pedigrees. R package version 1.1.0-22.
4. Bateson, P. (1983) Optimal outbreeding. Mate Choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Chesser, R.K. 1991. Gene diversity and female philopatry. Genetics 127: 437-447.
6. Clements, M.N., Clutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E., Pemberton, J.M. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2011. Variances and covariances of phenological traits in a wild mammal population. Evolution 65: 788-801.
7. Clutton-Brock, T.H. 1989. Review lecture: mammalian mating systems. Proc. Biol. Sci. 236: 339-372.
8. Clutton-Brock, T.H. & McAuliffe, K. 2009. Female mate choice in mammals. Q. Rev. Biol. 84: 3-27.
9. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Albon, S.D., Gibson, R.M. & Guinness, F.E. 1979. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim. Behav. 27: 211-225.
10. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Albon, S.D. & Guinness, F.E. 1982a. Competition between female relatives in a matrilocal mammal. Nature 300: 178-180.
11. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E. & Albon, S.D. 1982b. Red Deer: Behaviour and Ecology of Two Sexes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
12. Coltman, D.W., Bancroft, D.R., Robertson, A., Smith, J.A., Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Pemberton, J.M. 1999. Male reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal: behavioural estimates compared with genetic paternity. Mol. Ecol. 8: 1199-1209.
13. Coster, A. 2008. pedigree: Pedigree functions. R package version 1.1.
14. Foerster, K., Valcu, M., Johnsen, A. & Kempenaers, B. 2006. A spatial genetic structure and effects of relatedness on mate choice in a wild bird population. Mol. Ecol. 15: 4555-4567.
15. Griffin, A.S. & West, S.A. 2003. Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science 302: 634-636.
16. Hadfield, J.D., Richardson, D.S. & Burke, T. 2006. Towards unbiased parentage assignment: combining genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Ecol. 15: 3715-3730.
17. Hamilton, W.D. 1963. The evolution of altruistic behavior. Am. Nat. 97: 354-356.
18. Hansson, B., Jack, L., Christians, J.K., Pemberton, J.M., Ãkesson, M., Westerdahl, H. et al. 2007. No evidence for inbreeding avoidance in a great reed warbler population. Behav. Ecol. 18: 157-164.
19. Höglund, J. & Shorey, L. 2003. Local genetic structure in a white-bearded manakin population. Mol. Ecol. 12: 2457-2463.
20. Holand, Ø., Askim, K.R., Røed, K.H., Weladji, R.B., Gjøstein, H. & Nieminen, M. 2007. No evidence of inbreeding avoidance in a polygynous ungulate: the reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Biol. Lett. 3: 36-39.
21. Hughes, C. 1998. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Ecology 79: 383-399.
22. Iason, G.R. & Guinness, F.E. 1985. Synchrony of oestrus and conception in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim. Behav. 33: 1169-1174.
23. Keller, L. & Arcese, P. 1998. No evidence for inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Am. Nat. 152: 380-392.
24. Keller, L.F. & Waller, D.M. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 230-241.
25. Kleven, O., Jacobsen, F., Robertson, R.J. & Lifjeld, J.T. 2005. Extrapair mating between relatives in the barn swallow: a role for kin selection? Biol. Lett. 1: 389-392.
26. Kokko, H. & Ots, I. 2006. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60: 467-475.
27. Nussey, D.H., Coltman, D.W., Coulson, T., Kruuk, L.E.B., Donald, A., Morris, S.J. et al. 2005. Rapidly declining fine-scale spatial genetic structure in female red deer. Mol. Ecol. 14: 3395-3405.
28. Nussey, D.H., Kruuk, L.E.B., Morris, A., Clements, M.N., Pemberton, J.M. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. 2009. Inter- and intrasexual variation in aging patterns across reproductive traits in a wild red deer population. Am. Nat. 174: 342-357.
29. Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M.S. Blum & N.A. Blum, eds), pp. 123-166. Academic Press, New York.
30. Part, T. 1996. Problems with testing inbreeding avoidance: the case of the collared flycatcher. Evolution 50: 1625-1630.
31. Pérez-Espona, S., Pérez-Barbería, F.J., McLeod, J.E., Jiggins, C.D., Gordon, I.J. & Pemberton, J.M. 2008. Landscape features affect gene flow of Scottish Highland red deer (Cervus elaphus). Mol. Ecol. 17: 981-996.
32. Petrie, M., Krupa, A. & Burke, T. 1999. Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature 401: 155-157.
33. Piertney, S.B., MacColl, A.D.C., Lambin, X., Moss, R. & Dallas, J.F. 1999. Spatial distribution of genetic relatedness in a moorland population of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68: 317-331.
34. Pomeroy, P.P., Twiss, S.D. & Redman, P. 2000. Philopatry, site fidelity and local kin associations within grey seal breeding colonies. Ethology 106: 899-919.
35. Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 201-206.
36. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org (accessed February 1, 2011).
37. Rioux-Paquette, E., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Coltman, D.W. 2010. No inbreeding avoidance in an isolated population of bighorn sheep. Anim. Behav. 80: 865-871.
38. Rossiter, S.J., Ransome, R.D., Faulkes, C.G., Le Comber, S.C. & Jones, G. 2005. Mate fidelity and intra-lineage polygyny in greater horseshoe bats. Nature 437: 408-411.
39. Shorey, L., Piertney, S., Stone, J. & Hoglund, J. 2000. Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus manacus leks. Nature 408: 352-353.
40. Smith, R.H. 1979. On selection for inbreeding in polygynous animals. Heredity 43: 205-211.
41. Smith, K., Alberts, S.C. & Altmann, J. 2003. Wild female baboons bias their social behaviour towards paternal half-sisters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270: 503-510.
42. Stopher, K.V. (2011) Causes and Consequences of Sexual Selection in a Wild Population. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
43. Storz, J.F. 1999. Genetic consequences of mammalian social structure. J. Mammal. 80: 553-569.
44. Szulkin, M., Zelazowski, P., Nicholson, G. & Sheldon, B.C. 2009. Inbreeding avoidance under different null models of random mating in the great tit. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 778-788.
45. Walling, C.A., Pemberton, J.M., Hadfield, J.D. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2010. Comparing parentage inference software: reanalysis of a red deer pedigree. Mol. Ecol. 19: 1914-1928.
46. Walling, C., Nussey, D., Morris, A., Clutton-Brock, T., Kruuk, L. & Pemberton, J. 2011. Inbreeding depression in red deer calves. BMC Evol. Biol. 11: 318.
47. Wang, C. & Lu, X.I.N. 2011. Female ground tits prefer relatives as extra-pair partners: driven by kin-selection? Mol. Ecol. 20: 2851-2863.
48. Wang, J. & Santure, A.W. 2009. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 181: 1579-1594.
49. Waser, P.M., Austad, S.N. & Keane, B. 1986. When should animals tolerate inbreeding? Am. Nat. 128: 529-537.
50. Widdig, A. 2007. Paternal kin discrimination: the evidence and likely mechanisms. Biol. Rev. 82: 319-334.
51. Worthington Wilmer, J., Overall, A.J., Pomeroy, P.P., Twiss, S.D. & Amos, W. 2000. Patterns of paternal relatedness in British grey seal colonies. Mol. Ecol. 9: 283-292.