ライフサイエンスコーパス: monogamy

1 nt for women and men, respectively (assuming monogamy).

2 otential adaptive basis for perennial social monogamy.

3 y explanations about the biological bases of monogamy.

4 xplain the coexistence of gregariousness and monogamy.

5 n lower than expected under random mating or monogamy.

6 cross vertebrates when species transition to monogamy.

7 ve been unable to resolve the root causes of monogamy.

8 cs is needed to avoid violating entanglement monogamy.

9 a consequence rather than a cause of social monogamy.

10 Concordance was not associated with monogamy.

11 Conflict over remating can also generate monogamy.

12 regulating social behaviors associated with monogamy.

13 Avpr1a locus contributes to the evolution of monogamy.

14 ive strategy of A. afarensis was principally monogamy.

15 ities, male-biased sex ratios, and long-term monogamy.

16 males have access to numerous males, sustain monogamy?

17 ility of a shift to social monogamy, whereas monogamy allows the secondary adoption of paternal care

18 y masculinisation of the transcriptome under monogamy, although this depends on tissue and sex.

19 The decline of polygyny and the rise of monogamy among complex, stratified societies characteriz

20 proposed to explain the evolution of social monogamy among mammals: as a male mate-guarding strategy

21 ork to test for correlated evolution between monogamy and a range of traits to evaluate the competing

22 ested hypotheses related to the evolution of monogamy and affiliation.

23 dence of correlated evolution between social monogamy and both female ranging patterns and biparental

24 sex difference in pathways underlying social monogamy and demonstrates a fundamental disconnect betwe

25 n a simple contrast between resource defence monogamy and female defence polygyny.

26 nsignis), we modeled the interaction between monogamy and female life history.

27 Biparental care facilitates both social monogamy and genetic monogamy; frogs that work together

28 Monogamy and high paternal investment were associated wi

29 ant coevolution with traits including social monogamy and litter size.

30 The evolution of monogamy and paternal care in humans is often argued to

31 The results suggest monogamy and paternal investment can alter the evolution

32 of these aspects of maternal life history to monogamy and paternal investment in offspring is not wel

33 age range and to investigate the effects of monogamy and relationship duration on incidence.

34 We also evaluated the effect of monogamy and relationship duration on transmission incid

35 curacy and assume unrealistic assumptions of monogamy and synchronized generations.

36 tes for males are higher, fitness payoffs to monogamy and the maintenance of a single partner can be

37 opulations characterized by socially imposed monogamy, and it contains a complete distribution of sur

38 as sharing food beyond the immediate family, monogamy, and other forms of reproductive leveling.

39 urred during periods of sexual abstinence or monogamy, and were strongly associated with cumulative l

40 n intensity (intense [polygamy] vs. relaxed [monogamy]) and metapopulation structure (absent vs. pres

41 in rural Tanzania, where polygyny and serial monogamy are common.

42 that modern transitions to socially imposed monogamy are driven by cultural group selection.

43 Our findings suggest that monogamy arose repeatedly under similar socioecological

44 than paternal care, drives the evolution of monogamy, as it secures a partner and ensures paternity

45 ed in the behavioral differences relevant to monogamy, as oxytocin and vasopressin influence pair-bon

46 Equally important, the observation of monogamy at the level of flowers is in line with the mat

47 other animal phylads; (ii) the prevalence of monogamy at the time of evolutionary origin; and (iii) t

48 lleviated by religion and culturally imposed monogamy, both of which also find parallels among social

49 fects are even larger when the assumption of monogamy can be relaxed, but are moderated by other beha

50 The evolution of social monogamy does not appear to have been associated with a

51 Here, we show that the Bell monogamy does not hold universally and that in fact the

52 Competing explanations suggest that monogamy either i) reduces reproductive inequality, fost

53 So how did monogamy first evolve?

54 facilitates both social monogamy and genetic monogamy; frogs that work together to raise their offspr

55 acilitate mate choice, rival deterrence, and monogamy, gating spread of inferior genes from promiscuo

56 t competition over heritable wealth promotes monogamy globally.

57 d that both males and females evolving under monogamy had higher relative reproductive tissue investm

58 Social monogamy has evolved in nonhuman mammals where breeding

59 Primates are unusual among mammals because monogamy has evolved independently in all of the major c

60 The evolution of social monogamy has intrigued biologists for over a century.

61 he history of Indo-European societies, where monogamy has long been normative and closely associated

62 nt to the next generation, the constraint of monogamy has no impact on the qualities of the final pop

63 Forms of Bell monogamy have been linked to the no-signaling principle,

64 ss and underlying male harm mechanisms under monogamy (i.e. low male competition/harm) vs. polyandry

65 ionship between microsatellite structure and monogamy in 21 vole species.

66 es of great interest to researchers studying monogamy in animals.

67 er monogamous vertebrates; the prevalence of monogamy in birds may have increased opportunities for i

68 The origin of social monogamy in primates is best explained by long lactation

69 model is inconsistent: While it may explain monogamy in some language families, these dynamics do no

70 (Oxtr) is critical for the display of social monogamy in these animals.

71 ptomic mechanism underlying the evolution of monogamy in vertebrates.

72 ght provide a mechanism for the evolution of monogamy in voles.

73 control of several behaviors associated with monogamy, including pair bonding, paternal care and mate

74 Behaviors associated with monogamy, including pair-bond formation, are facilitated

75 investigated and found that the sign of the monogamy is a preserved quantity under the decoherence.

76 However, normative monogamy is also found in many societies beyond this his

77 Queen monogamy is ancestral among bees, ants, and wasps (Order

78 s is of solitary individuals and that social monogamy is derived almost exclusively from this social

79 ifficulties associated with deciding whether monogamy is enforced by one sex or the other.

80 compelling explanation for the appearance of monogamy is male infanticide.

81 Our results show that monogamy is strongly associated with land privatization

82 Monogamy is the dominant pattern everywhere, but having

83 by alternative benefits associated with male monogamy (monogyny).

84 y with the third observer, a property called monogamy of Bell violations.

85 We conjecture that the monogamy of coherence is a conserved property under loca

86 y of quantum coherence, as defined using the monogamy of coherence, is investigated and found that th

87 s, ranging from high promiscuity to absolute monogamy of domain surface employed, with both multiple

88 out the neuromolecular mechanisms underlying monogamy on a genomic scale.

89 le-biased genes, and experimentally imposing monogamy on Drosophila melanogaster has led to a relativ

90 yielded mixed results, and the effect of non-monogamy on song evolution remains unclear.

91 oobscura, to 150 generations of experimental monogamy or elevated polyandry.

92 paternal half-siblings also indicate serial monogamy or polygyny.

93 uch as sedentism, the shift from polygyny to monogamy or the increase of patrilocality.

94 Although common in birds, social monogamy, or pair-living, is rare among mammals because

95 secondary factor favouring perennial social monogamy, particularly in species with slower life-histo

96 productive success across temperatures under monogamy, polyandry resulted in a maximum decrease of fe

97 nd food sharing across mating systems (i.e., monogamy, polygyny, promiscuity), and we assess which sy

98 tight Bell inequalities that do not obey the monogamy principle for any number of more than three obs

99 e sexual selection, and that selection under monogamy removes this constraint.

100 ing of the neurobiological basis not only of monogamy, social attachment and nurturing behaviors but

101 Regardless of monogamy status or relationship duration, there was a si

102 ace-time correlations violating entanglement monogamy, such as those arising in black holes.

103 mestic dogs (FRDs) contrasts with the social monogamy typical of gray wolves and all other wild canid

104 Social monogamy, typically characterized by the formation of a

105 We also simulate the monogamy violation with polarization-entangled photons,

106 n alternative approach to OTCs, allowing for monogamy violations.

107 hese results provide the first evidence that monogamy was critical in the evolution of eusociality, s

108 f between search and survival, combined with monogamy when females were searching.

109 creases the probability of a shift to social monogamy, whereas monogamy allows the secondary adoption

110 onsiderable importance for studies of social monogamy, which only appears in a small subset of primat

111 patterns evolved decreased expression under monogamy, while genes with female-biased expression evol

112 costs and benefits to females of polyandry, monogamy with a single copulation, and monogamy with rep

113 ndry, monogamy with a single copulation, and monogamy with repeat copulations.

114 . maniculatus bairdii) to social and genetic monogamy with substantial paternal investment (P. califo