Data S4: Tables with data collected for meta-analyses
Table Meta-S1. Effect sizes for comparisons of genetic similarity to focal females between extra-pair and cuckolded males
Species
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Acrocephalus sechellensis
Acrocephalus sechellensis
Carpodacus mexicanus
Cygnus atratus
Dendroica caerulescens
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Geospiza fortis
Geospiza scandens
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Hirundo rustica
Luscinia svecica
Malurus splendens
Melospiza melodia
Melospiza melodia
Oenanthe oenanthe
Pachycephala pectoralis
Parus ater
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta leucorrhoa
Troglodytes aedon
Trait
Relatedness
Band sharing
Band sharing
Band sharing
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Band sharing
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Compatibility
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Genetic distance (Nei’s D)
Genetic distance (Nei’s D)
Genetic distance (amino acid)
Allele sharing
Genetic distance (amino acid)
Genetic distance (amino acid)
Allele sharing
Genetic distance (amino acid)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Relatedness
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Band sharing
Band sharing
Relatedness
Relatedness
Genetic similarity (rLR)
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Relatedness
Genetic similarity (rQG)
Genetic marker
Microsatellite
RFLP
DNA fingerprinting
DNA fingerprinting
Microsatellite
MHC
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
MHC (MHC 1 PBRs)
MHC (MHC 1)
MHC (MHC 1)
MHC (MHC 2 PBRs)
MHC 2
MHC (MHC 2)
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
DNA fingerprinting
DNA fingerprinting
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Microsatellite
Statistical test
Paired t
Sign test
NA, but provide mean and sd. of measurements
Sign test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Logistic regression
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Mean difference and 95%CIs
Wilcoxon matched pairs test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
GLMM
GLMM
Paired sign test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Npair
18
5
7
9
52
29
7
29
25
20
47
83
50
9
19
19
19
18
18
18
19
90
75
107
84
18
8
12
63
18
96
61
461
461
47
66
34
20
Fisher’s Zr
-0.150*
-0.290*
0.400
0
-0.069
0.069
0.468*
-0.094
-0.146
0.062*
-0.109
0.123*
0.037
0.074
-0.105
-0.079
-0.114
0
-0.123
0
-0.201
-0.135
0.127*
-0.080*
-0.091
-0.288*
-0.077*
-0.348
-0.056*
0.059
0.044
-0.031
0.002
-0.023
-0.193*
0.211*
-0.470*
0.189
Reference
Hansson et al. 2004
Bensch et al. 1994
Hasselquist et al. 1995
Langefors et al. 1998
Richardson et al. 2004
Richardson et al. 2005
Oh & Badyaev 2006
Kraaijeveld et al. 2004
Smith et al. 2005
Kleven & Lifjeld 2005
Bouwman et al. 2006
Suter et al. 2007
Grant & Grant 2011
Grant & Grant 2011
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Bollmer et al. 2012
Kleven et al. 2005
Fossøy et al. 2008
Tarvin et al. 2005
O'Connor 2003
Hill et al. 2011
Kudernatsch et al. 2010
van Dongen & Mulder 2009
Schmoll et al. 2005
Kempenaers et al. 1996
Foerster et al. 2003
Charmantier et al. 2004
Current study
Current study
Freeman-Gallant et al. 2006
Whittingham & Dunn 2010
Ferretti et al. 2011
Masters et al. 2003
* indicates that the Fisher’s Zr is based on the assumption that correlation = 0.2014 between extra-pair and cuckolded male measurements
Table Meta-S2. Effect sizes for comparisons of body size between extra-pair and cuckolded males
Species
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Dendroica caerulescens
Trait
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Body size
Tarsus length
Trait type
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Body size
Tarsus
Statistical test
Paired t
Wilcoxon signed-ranks test
Wilcoxon signed-ranks test
Paired t
Paired t
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica petechia
Emberiza citrinella
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Euplectes orix
Euplectes orix
Euplectes orix
Ficedula albicollis
Ficedula hypoleuca
Geospiza fortis
Geospiza fortis
Geospiza fortis
Geospiza scandens
Geothlypis trichas
Malurus splendens
Malurus splendens
Malurus splendens
Nectarinia osea
Oenanthe oenanthe
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus major
Parus major
Parus major
Weight
Wing length
Body size
Tarsus length
Tarsus length
Weight (residual)
Wing length
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Body size (PC1)
Tarsus length
Beak shape (PC2)
Beak size (PC1)
Body size (PC1)
Weight
Weight
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Wing length
Body size (standardized)
Tarsus length
Tarsus length
Tarsus length
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Wing length (standardized)
Tarsus length
Weight
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing
Body size
Tarsus
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Body size
Tarsus
Beak
Beak
Body size
Weight
Weight
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Wing
Body size
Tarsus
Tarsus
Tarsus
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Wing
Tarsus
Weight
Tarsus
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon matched pair test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon test
Wilcoxon test
Wilcoxon test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Sign test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon matched pairs test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Npair
10
9
9
78
25
18
23
20
11
48
48
48
19
19
19
10
10
66
66
66
9
28
99
99
99
4
8
31
73
35
61
61
61
32
12
14
15
Fisher’s Zr
0.019
-0.411*
-0.380*
0.061*
-0.183
-0.078
-0.060
0.143*
0.133
-0.012*
0.048*
0.225
0.264
0
0.260
-0.098*
-0.189*
0.058*
0.066*
-0.082
0*
0.073*
0.095*
0.066*
0.017*
-1.301*
0.493*
-0.179
0.231
0.367
0.015*
0.019*
0.037*
0.073
-0.011
-0.312
0
Reference
Hasselquist et al. 1996
Marshall et al. 2007
Marshall et al. 2007
Westneat 2006
Webster et al. 2001
Webster et al. 2001
Webster et al. 2001
Yezerinac & Weatherhead 1997
Sundberg & Dixon 1996
Bouwman et al. 2007
Bouwman et al. 2007
Bouwman et al. 2007
Friedl & Klump 2002
Friedl & Klump 2002
Friedl & Klump 2002
Sheldon & Ellegren 1999
Lehtonen et al. 2009
Grant & Grant 2011
Grant & Grant 2011
Grant & Grant 2011
Petren et al. 1999
Garvin et al. 2006
Tarvin et al. 2005
Tarvin et al. 2005
Tarvin et al. 2005
Zilberman et al. 1999
Kudernatsch et al. 2010
Foerster et al. 2003
Foerster et al. 2003
Kempenaers et al. 1997
Charmantier et al. 2004
Charmantier et al. 2004
Charmantier et al. 2004
Kempenaers et al. 1997
Van Oers et al. 2008
Van Oers et al. 2008
Strohbach et al. 1998
(continue)
Species
Parus major
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Setophaga ruticilla
Sialia currucoides
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Taeniopygia guttata
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Trait
Wing length
Beak length
Tail length
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Body size (PC)
Weight (lean)
Wing length
Wing length
Wing length
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Weight (corrected)
Wing length
Wing length
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Body size (PC1)
Beak length
Tarsus length
Wing length
Beak depth
Beak length
Beak width
Tarsus length (right)
Wing length (left)
Wing length (right)
Tarsus length
Weight
Wing length
Trait type
Wing
Beak
Body size
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Body size
Weight
Wing
Wing
Wing
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Weight
Wing
Wing
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Body size
Beak
Tarsus
Wing
Beak
Beak
Beak
Tarsus
Wing
Wing
Tarsus
Weight
Wing
Statistical test
Paired t
GLMM
GLMM
GLMM
GLMM
GLMM
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Repeated measures ANOVA
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Npair
15
414
414
414
414
414
14
14
14
21
25
9
7
12
14
14
4
9
9
11
28
40
40
40
14
14
14
14
16
16
22
22
22
Fisher’s Zr
0.214
0.003
0.027
0.034
0.050
0.009
-0.518
-0.246
-0.013
-0.083*
0.291*
-0.120
0.049
0.362
-0.243*
-0.013*
0.762*
0.143
0.501
-0.017
0.353
-0.014
0.214
0.060
-0.058
-0.242
0.141
-0.222
0.015
0.054
0
0
0.130
Reference
Strohbach et al. 1998
Current study
Current study
Current study
Current study
Current study
Forstmeier 2002
Forstmeier 2002
Forstmeier 2002
Reudink et al. 2009
Balenger et al. 2009
Kempenaers et al. 1999
Kempenaers et al. 1999
Kempenaers et al. 1999
Bitton et al. 2007
Bitton et al. 2007
Lifjeld et al. 1993
Kempenaers et al. 2001
Kempenaers et al. 2001
Kempenaers et al. 2001
Tschirren et al. 2012
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Stutchbury et al. 1997
Stutchbury et al. 1997
Stutchbury et al. 1997
* indicates that the Fisher’s Zr is based on the assumption that correlation = 0.0482 between extra-pair and cuckolded male measurements
Table Meta-S3. Effect sizes for comparisons of secondary sexual traits between extra-pair and cuckolded males
Species
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Cyanistes caeruleus
Cyanistes caeruleus
Cyanistes caeruleus
Cyanistes caeruleus
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica petechia
Emberiza citrinella
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Ficedula albicollis
Ficedula albicollis
Ficedula albicollis
Ficedula hypoleuca
Ficedula hypoleuca
Ficedula hypoleuca
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Geothlypis trichas
Hirundo rustica
Malurus splendens
Malurus splendens
Melospiza melodia
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus major
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Trait
Song repertoire size
Repertoire size
Epaulet size
Extent of nonblack
Brightness
Composite coloration (PC1 from hue,
brightness and saturation)
Hue
Saturation
Hue
Hue (cuckolder was a juvenile)
UV chroma
UV chroma (cuckolder was a juvenile)
Wing spot size
Plumage streaking
Colour
Badge colour
Badge size
Repertoire size
Syllable number
Forehead patch area
Forehead patch width
White wing patch
Drost score
Forehead patch size
UV
Black facial mask
Premating song rate
Bib colour (PC1)
Bib size
Mask size
Tail streamer
Percentage of blue on abdomen
Tail length
Song repertoire size
Average pause length
Average strophe length
Breast stripe width
Badge size
Mask area
Repertoire size
Trait type
Song
Song
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Statistical test
Paired t
Wilcoxon signed-ranks test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Npair
10
10
75
72
19
19
Fisher’s Zr
0.558
-0.401*
0.004*
0.015
0.090*
0.262*
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Song
Song
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Song
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Tail
Song
Song
Song
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Song
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon matched pair test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon matched pair test
Paired t
Paired t
Provide the mean difference and its 95%CIs
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
GLMM
GLMM
Paired t
19
19
48
15
48
15
18
26
11
21
48
14
14
12
12
12
11
10
8
16
13
29
29
30
43
99
99
13
6
6
14
231
229
7
0.212*
0.186*
-0.054*
0.155*
-0.081*
0.140*
0.060
0.084*
0.498
0.102*
0.076*
0.017*
0.045*
0.024*
0.515*
0.006*
-0.272*
-0.012*
0.206*
1.810*
0.211*
0.031*
0.149*
0.227
0.223
0.008*
0.045*
-0.074
0.667
0.881
-0.191
0.031
-0.016
-0.073*
Reference
Hasselquist et al. 1996
Marshall et al. 2007
Westneat 2006
Westneat 2006
Albrecht et al. 2009
Albrecht et al. 2009
Albrecht et al. 2009
Albrecht et al. 2009
Delhey et al. 2007
Delhey et al. 2007
Delhey et al. 2007
Delhey et al. 2007
Webster et al. 2001
Yezerinac & Weatherhead 1997
Sundberg & Dixon 1996
Bouwman et al. 2007
Bouwman et al. 2007
Bouwman et al. 2007
Bouwman et al. 2007
Sheldon & Ellegren 1999
Sheldon & Ellegren 1999
Sheldon & Ellegren 1999
Lehtonen et al. 2009
Lehtonen et al. 2009
Lehtonen et al. 2009
Thusius et al. 2001
Thusius et al. 2001
Garvin et al. 2006
Garvin et al. 2006
Garvin et al. 2006
Kleven et al. 2006a
Tarvin et al. 2005
Tarvin et al. 2005
Hill et al. 2011
Kempenaers et al. 1997
Kempenaers et al. 1997
Strohbach et al. 1998
Current study
Current study
Forstmeier et al. 2002
(continue)
Species
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus trochilus
Setophaga ruticilla
Setophaga ruticilla
Setophaga ruticilla
Setophaga ruticilla
Setophaga ruticilla
Setophaga ruticilla
Sialia currucoides
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta bicolor
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Taeniopygia guttata
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora chrysoptera
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia citrina
Trait
Residual syllable rate
Song with higher residual performance
Tail length
Song length
Bib size
Bib size
Flank brightness
Flank redness (PC1)
Tail brightness
Tail redness (PC1)
Colour scores
Tail length
Plumage hue (PC1)
Plumage blue chroma (PC2)
Plumage brightness (PC3)
Bill colour (PC1)
Bill colour (PC2)
Bill colour (PC3)
Breast band size
Cheek colour (PC1)
Cheek colour (PC2)
Cheek colour (PC3)
Cheek patch size
Song rate
30 min song rate
5 min song peak rate
Actual song rate
Tail length
Start time
Cap area
Cap length
Cap width
Tail length
Breast brightness
Breast colour
Cheek brightness
Cheek colour
Hood size
Song rate
Amount of time spent on singing
Trait type
Song
Song
Tail
Song
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Tail
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Song
Song
Song
Song
Tail
Timing of singing
ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Tail
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Ornament
Song
Timing of singing
Statistical test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Wilcoxon's signed rank test
Binomial test
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Mixed model ANCOVA
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Paired t
Npair
7
7
14
5
7
21
17
18
19
19
29
8
14
14
14
28
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
26
21
21
21
40
21
10
10
10
14
19
19
14
14
19
17
17
Fisher’s Zr
0.073*
0.704*
0.215
0.553
-0.145*
0.106*
0.215*
0.306*
-0.085*
0.246*
-0.020*
0.090
0.019
0.015*
0.183*
0.188
-0.301
0
-0.203
-0.357
-0.231
0.610
0.029
0.617
0.301
0.264
0.266
0.189
0.327
-0.081
-0.051
-0.374
-0.185
0.009
0.012
0.087
-0.040
-0.016
0.284*
0.046*
Reference
Forstmeier et al. 2002
Forstmeier et al. 2002
Forstmeier 2002
Gil et al. 2007
Perreault et al. 1997
Reudink et al. 2009
Reudink et al. 2009
Reudink et al. 2009
Reudink et al. 2009
Reudink et al. 2009
Balenger et al. 2009
Kempenaers et al. 1999
Bitton et al. 2007
Bitton et al. 2007
Bitton et al. 2007
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Tschirren et al. 2012
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Dolan et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Vallender et al. 2007
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
Chiver et al. 2008
* indicates that the Fisher’s Zr is based on the assumption that correlation = 0.5367 between extra-pair and cuckolded male measurements
Table Meta-S4. Effect sizes of comparisons of age between extra-pair and cuckolded males.
Species
Acrocephalus arundinaceus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Cyanistes caeruleus
Dendroica petechia
Emberiza citrinella
Emberiza schoeniclus
Emberiza schoeniclus
Ficedula albicollis
Geospiza fortis
Geospiza scandens
Luscinia svecica
Malurus splendens
Melospiza melodia
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus caeruleus
Parus major
Parus major
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Passer domesticus
Periparus ater
Periparus ater
Phylloscopus fuscatus
Phylloscopus trochilus
Poecile atricapillus
Progne subis
Wilsonia citrina
Trait type
Known age
Known age
Age class
Known age
Known age
Age class
Age class
Unknown
Known age
Unknown
Age class
Age class
Known age
Known age
Known age
Known age
Age class
Age class
Known age
Age class
Known age
Known age
Known age
Age class
Known age
Age class
Known age
Known age
Statistical test
Paired t
Wilcoxon test
Wilcoxon paired test
Chi-square
Paired t
Provided mean and s.e.
Sign test
Wilcoxon signed-ranks test
Sign test
Sign test
Fisher’s exact test
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank
NA, but provide the mean difference and 95%CIs
Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks
Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks
Paired t
Wilcoxon signed-ranks
Chi-square
GLMM
Sign test
Paired t
Wilcoxon's signed-rank
Wilcoxon's signed-rank
Wilcoxon’s signed-rank
Wilcoxon’s signed-rank
Sign test
Wilcoxon test
Paired t
Npair
10
57
49
26
11
17
10
12
97
9
59
108
19
36
79
61
11
15
461
10
23
18
21
14
5
15
74
22
Fisher’s Zr
0.490
0.284*
0.313*
0.418
0.253
0.420
0.348*
0.081*
0.216*
-0.337*
0.179*
-0.135*
-0.291*
-0.083
0.223
0.027*
-0.247*
0.080
0.015
0
0.556
0.276
0.341
0
0.182
0.274*
0.180*
0.053
Reference
Hasselquist et al. 1996
Weatherhead & Boag 1995
Delhey et al. 2007
Yezerinac & Weatherhead 1997
Sundberg & Dixon 1996
Bouwman et al. 2007
Kleven et al. 2006b
Sheldon & Ellegren 1999
Grant & Grant 2011
Petren et al. 1999
Johnsen et al. 2001
Tarvin et al. 2005
Hill et al. 2011
Foerster et al. 2003
Foerster et al. 2003
Charmantier et al. 2004
Strohbach et al. 1998
Van Oers et al. 2008
Current study
Stewart et al. 2006
Wetton et al. 1995
Schmoll et al. 2007
Schmoll et al. 2007
Forstmeier 2002
Gil et al. 2007
Otter et al. 1998
Tarof et al. 2012
Stutchbury et al. 1997
* indicates that the Fisher’s Zr is based on the assumption that correlation = 0.1394 between extra-pair and cuckolded male measurements
Table Meta-S5. Articles with pairwise comparisons between extra-pair and cuckolded males that were excluded in our meta-analyses
Reference
The reason to be excluded
Genetic similarity with focal females
Promerova et al. 2011
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect
Stewart et al. 2006
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect
Body size
Delhey et al. 2003
Dunn et al. 1994
Johnsen et al. 2001
Kappes et al. 2009
Kraaijeveld et al. 2004
Leisler et al. 2000
Zilberman et al. 1999
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size; sample size too small (Npair =2)
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Secondary sexual traits
Delhey et al. 2003
Dunn et al. 1994
Johnsen et al. 2001
Kappes et al. 2009
Kraaijeveld et al. 2004
Leisler et al. 2000
Zilberman et al. 1999
Data used in Delhey et al. 2007, which is included in the meta-analysis already
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Sample size too small (Npair = 2)
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
Age
Delhey et al. 2003
Grant & Grant 2011
Kempenaers et al. 1997
Leisler et al. 2000
Vallender et al. 2007
Webster et al. 2001
Data used in Delhey et al. 2007, which is included in the meta-analysis already
Insufficient information to estimate the effect size
Insufficient information to estimate the effect size
Insufficient information to estimate the effect size
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect
Insufficient information to identify the direction of the effect or the effect size
References
Albrecht T, Vinkler M, Schnitzer J, et al. (2009) Extra-pair fertilizations contribute to
selection on secondary male ornamentation in a socially monogamous passerine.
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22, 2020-2030.
Balenger S, Johnson L, Masters B (2009) Sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird:
Male color predicts paternity success in the mountain bluebird, Sialia currucoides.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 403-411.
Bensch S, Hasselquist D, Vonschantz T (1994) Genetic similarity between parents predicts
hatching failure - Nonincestuous inbreeding in the great reed warbler. Evolution 48,
317-326.
Bitton PP, O'Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Plumage brightness and age predict extrapair
fertilization success of male tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Animal Behaviour 74,
1777-1784.
Bollmer JL, Dunn PO, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA (2012) Social and extra-pair
mating in relation to major histocompatibility complex variation in common
yellowthroats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 4778-4785.
Bouwman KM, Burke T, Komdeur J (2006) How female reed buntings benefit from extrapair mating behaviour: Testing hypotheses through patterns of paternity in sequential
broods. Molecular Ecology 15, 2589-2600.
Bouwman KM, Van Dijk RE, Wijmenga JJ, Komdeur J (2007) Older male reed buntings are
more successful at gaining extrapair fertilizations. Animal Behaviour 73, 15-27.
Charmantier A, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2004) Do extra-pair paternities provide
genetic benefits for female blue tits Parus caeruleus? Journal of Avian Biology 35,
524-532.
Chiver I, Stutchbury BJM, Morton ES (2008) Do male plumage and song characteristics
influence female off-territory forays and paternity in the hooded warbler? Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 62, 1981-1990.
Delhey K, Johnsen A, Peters A, Andersson S, Kempenaers B (2003) Paternity analysis
reveals opposing selection pressures on crown coloration in the blue tit (Parus
caeruleus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270, 2057-2063.
Delhey K, Peters A, Johnsen A, Kempenaers B (2007) Fertilization success and UV
ornamentation in blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus: Correlational and experimental
evidence. Behavioral Ecology 18, 399-409.
Dolan AC, Murphy MT, Redmond LJ, Sexton K, Duffield D (2007) Extrapair paternity and
the opportunity for sexual selection in a socially monogamous passerine. Behavioral
Ecology 18, 985-993.
Dunn PO, Robertson RJ, Michaudfreeman D, Boag PT (1994) Extra-pair paternity in tree
swallows - Why do females mate with more than one male. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 35, 273-281.
Ferretti V, Massoni V, Bulit F, Winkler DW, Lovette IJ (2011) Heterozygosity and fitness
benefits of extrapair mate choice in white-rumped swallows (Tachycineta leucorrhoa).
Behavioral Ecology 22, 1178-1186.
Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase
offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425, 714-717.
Forstmeier W (2002) Factors contributing to male mating success in the polygynous dusky
warbler (Phylloscopus fuscatus). Behaviour 139, 1361-1381.
Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B (2002) A novel song parameter correlates
with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B 269, 1479-1485.
Fossøy F, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT (2008) Multiple genetic benefits of female promiscuity in a
socially monogamous passerine. Evolution 62, 145-156.
Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, Sollecito SV (2006) Genetic
similarity, extrapair paternity, and offspring quality in Savannah sparrows
(Passerculus sandwichensis). Behavioral Ecology 17, 952-958.
Friedl TWP, Klump GM (2002) Extrapair paternity in the red bishop (Euplectes orix): Is
there evidence for the good-genes hypothesis? Behaviour 139, 777-800.
Garvin JC, Abroe B, Pedersen MC, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2006) Immune response of
nestling warblers varies with extra-pair paternity and temperature. Molecular Ecology
15, 3833-3840.
Gil D, Slater PJB, Graves JA (2007) Extra-pair paternity and song characteristics in the
willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus. Journal of Avian Biology 38, 291-297.
Grant PR, Grant BR (2011) Causes of lifetime fitness of Darwin's finches in a fluctuating
environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108, 674-679.
Hansson B, Hasselquist D, Bensch S (2004) Do female great reed warblers seek extra-pair
fertilizations to avoid inbreeding? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271, S290-S292.
Hasselquist D, Bensch S, Vonschantz T (1995) Low-frequency of extrapair paternity in the
polygynous great reed warbler, Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Behavioral Ecology 6,
27-38.
Hasselquist D, Bensch S, vonSchantz T (1996) Correlation between male song repertoire,
extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381, 229232.
Hill CE, Akcay C, Campbell SE, Beecher MD (2011) Extrapair paternity, song, and genetic
quality in song sparrows. Behavioral Ecology 22, 73-81.
Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Andersson S, Ornborg J, Amundsen T (2001) Male characteristics and
fertilisation success in bluethroats. Behaviour 138, 1371-1390.
Kappes PJ, Stutchbury BJM, Woolfenden BE (2009) The relationship between carotenoidbased coloration and pairing, within- and extra-pair mating success in the American
redstart. Condor 111, 684-693.
Kempenaers B, Adriaensen F, van Noordwijk AJ, Dhondt AA (1996) Genetic similarity,
inbreeding and hatching failure in blue tits: Are unhatched eggs infertile? Proceedings
of the Royal Society B 263, 179-185.
Kempenaers B, Congdon B, Boag P, Robertson RJ (1999) Extrapair paternity and egg
hatchability in tree swallows: Evidence for the genetic compatibility hypothesis?
Behavioral Ecology 10, 304-311.
Kempenaers B, Everding S, Bishop C, Boag P, Robertson RJ (2001) Extra-pair paternity and
the reproductive role of male floaters in the tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor).
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 251-259.
Kempenaers B, Verheyren GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus
caeruleus): Female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behavioral
Ecology 8, 481-492.
Kleven O, Jacobsen F, Izadnegahdar R, Robertson RJ, Lifjeld JT (2006a) Male tail streamer
length predicts fertilization success in the North American barn swallow (Hirundo
rustica erythrogaster). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59, 412-418.
Kleven O, Jacobsen F, Robertson RJ, Lifjeld JT (2005) Extrapair mating between relatives in
the barn swallow: A role for kin selection? Biology Letters 1, 389-392.
Kleven O, Lifjeld JT (2005) No evidence for increased offspring heterozygosity from
extrapair mating in the reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). Behavioral Ecology 16,
561-565.
Kleven O, Marthinsen G, Lifjeld JT (2006b) Male extraterritorial forays, age and paternity in
the socially monogamous reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). Journal of
Ornithology 147, 468-473.
Kraaijeveld K, Carew PJ, Billing T, Adcock GJ, Mulder RA (2004) Extra-pair paternity does
not result in differential sexual selection in the mutually ornamented black swan
(Cygnus atratus). Molecular Ecology 13, 1625-1633.
Kudernatsch D, Buchmann M, Fiedler W, Segelbacher G (2010) Extrapair paternity in a
German population of the northern wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe). Journal of
Ornithology 151, 491-498.
Langefors A, Hasselquist D, von Schantz T (1998) Extra-pair fertilizations in the sedge
warbler. Journal of Avian Biology 29, 134-144.
Lehtonen PK, Primmer CR, Laaksonen T (2009) Different traits affect gain of extrapair
paternity and loss of paternity in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Animal
Behaviour 77, 1103-1110.
Leisler B, Beier J, Staudter H, Wink M (2000) Variation in extra-pair paternity in the
polygynous great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus). Journal Fur
Ornithologie 141, 77-84.
Lifjeld JT, Dunn PO, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1993) Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree
swallows. Animal Behaviour 45, 213-229.
Marshall RC, Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2007) Song and female choice for extrapair
copulations in the sedge warbler, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. Animal Behaviour 73,
629-635.
Masters BS, Hicks BG, Johnson LS, Erb LA (2003) Genotype and extra-pair paternity in the
house wren: A rare-male effect? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270, 1393-1397.
O'Connor KD (2003) Extra-pair mating and effective population size in the song sparrow,
University of British Columbia.
Oh KP, Badyaev AV (2006) Adaptive genetic complementarity in mate choice coexists with
selection for elaborate sexual traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273, 19131919.
Otter K, Ratcliffe L, Michaud D, Boag PT (1998) Do female black-capped chickadees prefer
high-ranking males as extra-pair partners? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43,
25-36.
Perreault S, Lemon RE, Kuhnlein U (1997) Patterns and correlates of extrapair paternity in
American redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla). Behavioral Ecology 8, 612-621.
Petren K, Grant BR, Grant PR (1999) Low extrapair paternity in the cactus finch (Geospiza
scandens). Auk 116, 252-256.
Promerova M, Vinkler M, Bryja J, et al. (2011) Occurrence of extra-pair paternity is
connected to social male's MHC-variability in the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus
erythrinus. Journal of Avian Biology 42, 5-10.
Reudink MW, Marra PP, Boag PT, Ratcliffe LM (2009) Plumage coloration predicts
paternity and polygyny in the American redstart. Animal Behaviour 77, 495-501.
Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T (2004) Inbreeding in the Seychelles warbler:
Environment-dependent maternal effects. Evolution 58, 2037-2048.
Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T, von Schantz T (2005) MHC-based patterns of social
and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 272, 759-767.
Schmoll T, Mund V, Dietrich-Bischoff V, Winkel W, Lubjuhn T (2007) Male age predicts
extrapair and total fertilization success in the socially monogamous coal tit.
Behavioral Ecology 18, 1073-1081.
Schmoll T, Quellmalz A, Dietrich V, et al. (2005) Genetic similarity between pair mates is
not related to extrapair paternity in the socially monogamous coal tit. Animal
Behaviour 69, 1013-1022.
Sheldon BC, Ellegren H (1999) Sexual selection resulting from extrapair paternity in collared
flycatchers. Animal Behaviour 57, 285-298.
Smith SB, Webster MS, Holmes RT (2005) The heterozygosity theory of extra-pair mate
choice in birds: A test and a cautionary note. Journal of Avian Biology 36, 146-154.
Stewart IRK, Hanschu RD, Burke T, Westneat DF (2006) Tests of ecological, phenotypic,
and genetic correlates of extra-pair paternity in the house sparrow. Condor 108, 399413.
Strohbach S, Curio E, Bathen A, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (1998) Extrapair paternity in the great
tit (Parus major): A test of the "good genes" hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology 9, 388396.
Stutchbury BJM, Piper WH, Neudorf DL, et al. (1997) Correlates of extra-pair fertilization
success in hooded warblers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 40, 119-126.
Sundberg J, Dixon A (1996) Old, colourful male yellowhammers, Emberiza citrinella,
benefit from extra-pair copulations. Animal Behaviour 52, 113-122.
Suter SM, Keiser M, Feignoux R, Meyer DR (2007) Reed bunting females increase fitness
through extra-pair mating with genetically dissimilar males. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 274, 2865-2871.
Tarof SA, Kramer PM, Tautin J, Stutchbury BJM (2012) Effects of known age on male
paternity in a migratory songbird. Behavioral Ecology 23, 313-321.
Tarvin KA, Webster MS, Tuttle EM, Pruett-Jones S (2005) Genetic similarity of social mates
predicts the level of extrapair paternity in splendid fairy-wrens. Animal Behaviour 70,
945-955.
Thusius KJ, Peterson KA, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2001) Male mask size is correlated
with mating success in the common yellowthroat. Animal Behaviour 62, 435-446.
Tschirren B, Postma E, Rutstein AN, Griffith SC (2012) When mothers make sons sexy:
Maternal effects contribute to the increased sexual attractiveness of extra-pair
offspring. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 1233-1240.
Vallender R, Friesen VL, Robertson RJ (2007) Paternity and performance of golden-winged
warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera) and golden-winged X blue-winged warbler (V
pinus) hybrids at the leading edge of a hybrid zone. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 61, 1797-1807.
van Dongen WFD, Mulder RA (2009) Multiple ornamentation, female breeding synchrony,
and extra-pair mating success of golden whistlers (Pachycephala pectoralis). Journal
of Ornithology 150, 607-620.
Van Oers K, Drent PJ, Dingemanse NJ, Kempenaers B (2008) Personality is associated with
extrapair paternity in great tits, Parus major. Animal Behaviour 76, 555-563.
Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995) Pair and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality
in red-winged blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 37, 81-91.
Webster MS, Chuang-Dobbs HC, Holmes RT (2001) Microsatellite identification of extrapair
sires in a socially monogamous warbler. Behavioral Ecology 12, 439-446.
Westneat DF (2006) No evidence of current sexual selection on sexually dimorphic traits in a
bird with high variance in mating success. American Naturalist 167, E171-E189.
Wetton JH, Burke T, Parkin DT, Cairns E (1995) Single-locus DNA fingerprinting reveals
that male reproductive success increases with age through extra-pair paternity in the
house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 260, 91-98.
Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2010) Fitness benefits of polyandry for experienced females.
Molecular Ecology 19, 2328-2335.
Yezerinac SM, Weatherhead PJ (1997) Extra-pair mating, male plumage coloration and
sexual selection in yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 264, 527-532.
Zilberman R, Moav B, Yom-Tov Y (1999) Extra-pair paternity in the socially monogamous
orange-tufted sunbird (Nectarinia osea osea). Israel Journal of Zoology 45, 407-421.