Disentangling the causes of age-assortative mating in bird populations with contrasting life-history strategies.
Disentangling the causes of age-assortative mating in bird populations with contrasting life-history strategies.
复制标题
通过对比生活史策略来阐明鸟类种群年龄选配交配的原因。
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2656.13851
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Woodman JP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Woodman JP
年龄决定了与行为、生存和繁殖有关的基本过程，年龄影响生殖成功，而年龄相关的非随机交配可以放大或减轻这种影响。因此，一个群体中伴侣年龄的相关性可能会影响其生产力。尽管有广泛的证据表明年龄分类交配，但很少有人知道是什么驱动了这种分类及其变化。具体来说，在驱动年龄分类中，主动过程（同龄配偶偏好）和被动过程（由于其他空间或时间效应而产生的分类）的相对重要性尚未得到很好的理解。在本文中，我们比较了大山雀和疣鼻天鹅种群（分别为51年和31年的数据集）的繁殖数据，以梳理具有不同生活史的物种中配偶保留、群体年龄结构和与活跃年龄相关的配偶选择对年龄分类的贡献。这两个物种都表现出年龄-分类交配和不同年份之间的可变分类。然而，我们证明了年龄分类的驱动因素在物种之间是不同的，正如他们的生活史和由此产生的人口统计学差异所预期的那样。在大山雀中，配偶保真度通过配偶保留对年龄-分类交配有微弱影响；年龄分类的变化主要是由青少年招募变化引起的年龄结构波动所驱动的。因此，年龄选型交配在很大程度上是被动的，没有证据表明与主动年龄相关的配偶选择是一致的。在哑巴天鹅中，年龄分类部分是由配对保留来解释的，但不是人口年龄结构，并且存在积极年龄分类配对的证据。这种差异可能是由于与疣鼻天鹅相比，大山雀的寿命较短，这导致了它们种群年龄结构的根本差异，即更大比例的大山雀种群由单一年龄群组成。在哑天鹅中，通过配偶选择的年龄-选型配对也可能受到更大的年龄依赖性适应性变化的驱动。该研究强调了考虑不同生活史和由此产生的人口统计学差异如何影响跨物种一致的种群过程的重要性。我们建议未来的研究应侧重于揭示导致主动年龄-选择性配偶选择变化的近似机制（如在哑天鹅中所见）；以及年龄结构变化对野生种群生态和社会功能的影响。
Age shapes fundamental processes related to behaviour, survival and reproduction, where age influences reproductive success, non‐random mating with respect to age can magnify or mitigate such effects. Consequently, the correlation in partners' age across a population may influence its productivity. Despite widespread evidence for age‐assortative mating, little is known about what drives this assortment and its variation. Specifically, the relative importance of active (same‐age mate preference) and passive processes (assortment as a consequence of other spatial or temporal effects) in driving age assortment is not well understood.In this paper, we compare breeding data from a great tit and mute swan population (51‐ and 31‐year datasets, respectively) to tease apart the contributions of pair retention, cohort age structure and active age‐related mate selection to age assortment in species with contrasting life histories.Both species show age‐assortative mating and variable assortment between years. However, we demonstrate that the drivers of age assortment differ between the species, as expected from their life histories and resultant demographic differences. In great tits, pair fidelity has a weak effect on age‐assortative mating through pair retention; variation in age assortment is primarily driven by fluctuations in age structure from variable juvenile recruitment. Age‐assortative mating is, therefore, largely passive, with no evidence consistent with active age‐related mate selection. In mute swans, age assortment is partly explained by pair retention, but not population age structure, and evidence exists for active age‐assortative pairing.This difference is likely to result from shorter life‐spans in great tits compared with mute swans, leading to fundamental differences in their population age structure, whereby a larger proportion of great tit populations consist of a single age cohort. In mute swans, age‐assortative pairing through mate selection may also be driven by greater age‐dependent variation in fitness.The study highlights the importance of considering how different life histories and demographic differences arising from these affect population processes that appear congruent across species. We suggest that future research should focus on uncovering the proximate mechanisms that lead to variation in active age‐assortative mate selection (as seen in mute swans); and the consequences of variation in age structure on the ecological and social functioning of wild populations.