Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 536–545 | Cite as

Differing rates of extra-group paternity between two populations of the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen)

Original Article


Extra-pair paternity (EPP) is a common feature of the mating systems of many birds. The rate of EPP may vary between species, races and populations. A comparison of extra-group paternity (EGP) rates was made between two races of a group-living passerine, the Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen), to determine if similar mating systems were being employed. The two populations had similar social structure, but differed in group size and dispersal. It was predicted that dispersal differences would have a profound effect on the rate of EGP between the populations, as the population with the lower rate of dispersal and higher chance of breeding with a close relative would engage in EGPs more frequently. Eight microsatellite loci were used to determine parentage in the white-backed Australian magpie (G. t. tyrannica). The rate of EGP was found to be 44%. Dispersal rates were estimated from observational data. Over half of the juvenile magpie cohort from the previous breeding season left the territorial group. These results contrast sharply with the results found by other researchers in a population of western Australian magpies (G. t. dorsalis). In this population, 82% EGP is recorded and dispersal of juveniles is close to nil. The results indicate that dispersal rate is a potentially important predictor of rates of extra-group fertilisations between populations of this species, and suggest that females maximise their reproductive output by avoiding breeding with close kin.


Australian magpie Dispersal Extra-group paternity Inbreeding avoidance Microsatellites 


  1. Baker AM, Mather, PB, Hughes JM (2000) Population genetic structure of Australian magpies: evidence for regional differences in juvenile dispersal behaviour. Heredity 85:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker AM, Mather, PB, Hughes, JM (2001) Evidence for long-distance dispersal in a sedentary passerine, Gymnorhina tibicen (Artamidae). Biol J Linn Soc 72:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bensch S, Hasselquist D, Von Schantz T (1994) Genetic similarity between parents predicts hatching failure: nonincestuous inbreeding in the great reed warbler? Evolution 48:317–326Google Scholar
  4. Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Székely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extrapair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooker M, Rowley I, Adams M, Baverstock PR (1990) Promiscuity: an inbreeding avoidance mechanism in a socially monogamous species? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:191–199Google Scholar
  6. Carrick R (1963) Ecological significance of territory in the Australian magpie, Gymnorhina tibicen. Proc Int Ornithol Congr 13:740–753Google Scholar
  7. Carrick R (1972) Population ecology of the Australian black-backed magpie, royal penguin, and silver gull. Population ecology of migratory birds: a symposium. U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlife Research Report 2:41–99Google Scholar
  8. Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Double MC (2003) Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 72:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniels S, Walters JR (2000) Inbreeding depression and its effects on natal dispersal in red-cockaded woodpeckers. Condor 102:482–491Google Scholar
  10. Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farabaugh SM, Brown ED, Hughes JM (1992) Cooperative territorial defense in the Australian magpie, Gymnorhina tibicen (Passeriformes, Cracticidae), a group-living songbird. Ethology 92:283–292Google Scholar
  12. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Green DJ, Cockburn A, Hall ML, Osmond H, Dunn PO (1995) Increased opportunities for cuckoldry may be why dominant male fairy-wrens tolerate helpers. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:297–303Google Scholar
  14. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths R, Daan S, Dijkstra C (1996) Sex identification in birds using two CHD genes. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1251–1256Google Scholar
  16. Haig SM, Walters JR, Plissner JH (1994) Genetic evidence for monogamy in the cooperatively breeding red-cockaded woodpecker. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansson B, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2003) A new approach to study dispersal: immigration of novel alleles reveals female-biased dispersal in great reed-warblers. Mol Ecol 12:631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasselquist D, Bensch S, von Schantz T (1996) Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381:229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes JM, Hesp JDE, Kallioinen R, Kempster M, Lange CL, Hedstrom KE, Mather PB, Robinson A, Welbourne MJ (1996) Differences in social behaviour between populations of the Australian magpie Gymnorhina tibicen. Emu 96:65–70Google Scholar
  20. Hughes JM, Mather PB, Toon A, Ma J, Rowley I, Russell E (2003) High levels of extra-group paternity in a population of Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen): evidence from microsatellite analysis. Mol Ecol 12:3441–3450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jennions MD (1997) Female promiscuity and genetic incompatibility. Trends Ecol Evol 12:251–253Google Scholar
  22. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt AA (1992) Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kempenaers B, Adriaensen F, Van Noordwijk AJ, Dhondt AA (1996) Genetic similarity, inbreeding and hatching failure in blue tits: are unhatched eggs infertile? Proc R Soc Lond B 263:179–185Google Scholar
  24. Kempenaers B, Congdon B, Boag P, Robertson RJ (1999) Extrapair paternity and egg hatchability in tree swallows: evidence for the genetic compatibility hypothesis? Behav Ecol 10:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komdeur J (1994) The effect of kinship on helping in the cooperative breeding Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis). Proc R Soc Lond B 256:47–52Google Scholar
  26. Ligon JD (1999) The Evolution of Avian Breeding Systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275Google Scholar
  31. Raymond F, Rousset M (1995) Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity 86:534–543Google Scholar
  32. Robinson A (1956) The annual reproductory cycle of the magpie, Gymnorhina dorsalis Campbell, in south-western Australia. Emu 56:235–336Google Scholar
  33. Schodde R, Mason IJ (1999) The Directory of Australian Birds: Passerines. CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheldon BC, Merilä J, Qvarnström A, Gustafsson L, Ellegren H (1997) Paternal genetic contribution to offspring condition predicted by size of male secondary sexual character. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slate J, Marshall T, Pemberton J (2000) A retrospective assessment of the accuracy of the paternity inference program CERVUS. Mol Ecol 9:801–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stockley P, Searle JB, MacDonald DW, Jones CS (1993) Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proc R Soc Lond B 254:173–179Google Scholar
  37. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995) Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weir BS , Cockerham CC (1984). Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358-1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yezerinac SM, Weatherhead PJ (1997) Extra-pair mating, male plumage coloration and sexual selection in yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). Proc R Soc Lond B 264:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic compatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717Google Scholar
  42. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264: 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian School of Environmental StudiesGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations