Inbreeding in Littledale's whistling rat Parotomys littledalei

A taste for the familiar: explaining the inbreeding paradox

The negative consequences of inbreeding have led animal biologists to assume that mate choice is generally biased against relatives. However, inbreeding avoidance is highly variable and by no means the rule across animal taxa. Even when inbreeding is costly, there are numerous examples of animals failing to avoid inbreeding or even preferring to mate with close kin. We argue that selective and mechanistic constraints interact to limit the evolution of inbreeding avoidance, notably when there is a risk of mating with heterospecifics and losing fitness through hybridization. Further, balancing inbreeding avoidance with conspecific mate preference may drive the evolution of multivariate sexual communication. Studying different social and sexual decisions within the same species can illuminate trade-offs among mate-choice mechanisms.

Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding

Animals are usually expected to avoid mating with relatives (kin avoidance) as incestuous mating can lead to the expression of inbreeding depression. Yet, theoretical models predict that unbiased mating with regards to kinship should be common, and that under some conditions, the inclusive fitness benefits associated with inbreeding can even lead to a preference for mating with kin. This mismatch between empirical and theoretical expectations generates uncertainty as to the prevalence of inbreeding avoidance in animals. Here, we synthesized 677 effect sizes from 139 experimental studies of mate choice for kin versus non-kin in diploid animals, representing 40 years of research, using a meta-analytical approach. Our meta-analysis revealed little support for the widely held view that animals avoid mating with kin, despite clear evidence of publication bias. Instead, unbiased mating with regards to kinship appears widespread across animals and experimental conditions. The significance of a variety of moderators was explored using meta-regressions, revealing that the degree of relatedness and prior experience with kin explained some variation in the effect sizes. Yet, we found no difference in kin avoidance between males and females, choice and no-choice experiments, mated and virgin animals or between humans and animals. Our findings highlight the need to rethink the widely held view that inbreeding avoidance is a given in experimental studies.