Submit a preprint

Direct submissions to PCI Ecology from are possible using the B2J service


Investigating sex differences in genetic relatedness in great-tailed grackles in Tempe, Arizona to infer potential sex biases in dispersaluse asterix (*) to get italics
Sevchik, A., Logan, C. J., McCune, K. B., Blackwell, A., Rowney, C. and Lukas, DPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>In most bird species, females disperse prior to their first breeding attempt, while males remain closer to the place they hatched for their entire lives. Explanations for such female bias in natal dispersal have focused on the resource-defense based monogamous mating system that is prevalent in most birds. In this system, males are argued to benefit from philopatry because knowing the local environment can help them to establish territories to attract females, while females are argued to benefit from dispersing because they can find suitable unrelated mates. However, theoretical, field, and comparative studies highlight that the factors shaping dispersal decisions are often more complex. Studying species with different social and mating systems can help illuminate the relative role of various factors in the evolution of sex biased dispersal. Here, we use genetic approaches to determine whether females and/or males disperse in great-tailed grackles (*Quiscalus mexicanus*), which have a mating system where the males hold breeding territories that multiple females might choose to place their nest in, but females forage independently of these breeding territories across a wider area. First, we find that, for individuals caught at a single site in Arizona, the average relatedness among all female dyads is higher than average relatedness among other individuals at the site, whereas average relatedness among all males dyads is not. Second, we find that female close relatives are found within shorter distances from each other than pairs of unrelated females, whereas male close relatives are found at larger distances from each other than pairs of unrelated males. Third, we find a decline in relatedness with increasing spatial distances for females, but not for males. Our results indicate sex biases in relatedness structure that differ from most other bird species. Female great-tailed grackles associate with close genetic relatives, presumably by remaining close to where they hatched which would lead to them remaining close to their mothers and sisters. Males are not found close to genetic relatives, suggesting that they disperse away from their fathers and brothers. Our findings show that great-tailed grackles offer a relevant study system to further understand the factors shaping natal philopatry and dispersal, given this reversal of the usual sex-bias in dispersal in line with their divergent social and mating system.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Quiscalus mexicanus, dispersal, philopatry, relatedness, mating system, social system
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Behaviour & Ethology, Dispersal & Migration, Zoology
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2020-08-24 17:53:06
Emanuel A. Fronhofer