IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v27y2016i1p93-100..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple mating predicts intensity but not mechanism of kin recognition

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy J.A. Hain
  • Shawn R. Garner
  • Indar W. Ramnarine
  • Bryan D. Neff

Abstract

Understanding how animals recognize their kin has been a major challenge in biology. Most animals use one of 2 mechanisms: "familiarity" whereby kin are remembered from interactions early in life, such as in a nest, or "phenotype matching" whereby putative kin are compared with a template of what kin should look, smell, or sound like. Cross-species studies suggest that there is a link between which of these 2 mechanisms are used and the degree of female promiscuity (multiple mating). Phenotype matching is more likely to be used by promiscuous species because these species have lower average brood relatedness than monogamous species and familiarity is thus an unreliable cue of relatedness. However, it is unclear if this relationship holds within species, across populations that differ in their degree of promiscuity. Here, we take advantage of variation in brood relatedness across populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to examine the relationship between kin recognition mechanisms and multiple mating within a single species. Contrary to the established hypothesis, we show that variation in recognition mechanism across populations is not governed by multiple mating. Instead, our data show that kin recognition, quantified as association preferences for shoalmates, is strongest when brood relatedness is high, consistent with Hamilton’s rule, but multiple mating does not otherwise influence the specific recognition mechanism used.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy J.A. Hain & Shawn R. Garner & Indar W. Ramnarine & Bryan D. Neff, 2016. "Multiple mating predicts intensity but not mechanism of kin recognition," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 93-100.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:93-100.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arv126
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:93-100.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.