The application of molecular genetic techniques has revolutionized our view of avian mating systems. Contrary to prior expectations, birds are only very rarely sexually monogamous, with ‘extra‐pair offspring’ found in approximately 90% of species. Even among socially monogamous species, over 11% of offspring are, on average, the result of extra‐pair paternity (EPP). Based on over 150 molecular genetic studies of EPP in birds, we review two topical areas: (i) ecological explanations for interspecific variation in the rate of EPP; and (ii) evidence bearing on the adaptive function of EPP. We highlight the remaining challenges of understanding the relative roles of genes and ecology in determining variation between taxa in the rate of extra paternity, and testing for differences between extra‐pair offspring and those sired within‐pair.

Recombination: The birds and the yeast: Apes and mice have a specific gene, PRDM9 , that is associated with genomic regions with high rates of recombination, called hotspots. In species with PRDM9 , hotspots move rapidly within the genome, varying among populations and closely related species (see the Perspective by Lichten). To investigate recombination hotspots in species lacking PRDM9 , Singhal et al. examined bird genomes, which lack a PRDM9 gene. They looked closely at the genomes of finch species and found that recombination was localized to the promoter regions of genes and highly conserved over millions of years. Similarly, Lam and Keeney examined recombination localization within yeast, which also lacks PRDM9 . They found a similar more-or-less fixed pattern of hotspots. Thus, recombination in species lacking a PRDM9 gene shows similar patterns of hotspot localization and evolution. Science , this issue p. 913 , p. 928 ; see also p. 932

The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines. Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents. However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained. However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and potentially significant confounding variable due to differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained. Here we review to what extent the characteristics of artificial nestboxes (e.g. size, shape, construction material, colour) are documented in the 'methods' sections of publications involving hole-nesting passerine birds using natural or excavated cavities or artificial nestboxes for reproduction and roosting. Despite explicit previous recommendations that authors describe in detail the characteristics of the nestboxes used, we found that the description of nestbox characteristics in most recent publications remains poor and insufficient. We therefore list the types of descriptive data that should be included in the methods sections of relevant manuscripts and justify this by discussing how variation in nestbox characteristics can affect or confound conclusions from nestbox studies. We also propose several recommendations to improve the reliability and usefulness of research based on long-term studies of any secondary hole-nesting species using artificial nestboxes for breeding or roosting.Peer Reviewe

Since the first molecular study providing evidence for mating outside the pair bond in birds over 30 years ago, >500 studies have reported rates of extra‐pair paternity (EPP) in >300 bird species. Here, we give a detailed overview of the current literature reporting EPP in birds and highlight the sampling biases and patterns in the data set with respect to taxonomy, avian phylogeny and global regions, knowledge of which will be crucial for correct interpretation of results in future comparative studies. Subsequently, we use this comprehensive dataset to simultaneously test the role of several ecological and life history variables. We do not find clear evidence that variation in EPP across socially monogamous species can be explained by latitude, density (coloniality), migration, generation length, genetic structuring (dispersal distance), or climatic variability, after accounting for phylogeny. These results contrast previous studies, most likely due to the large heterogeneity within species in both EPP and the predictor of interest, indicating that using species averages might be unreliable. Despite the absence of broadscale ecological drivers in explaining interspecific variation in EPP, we suggest that certain behaviours and ecological variables might facilitate or constrain EPP, as indicated by our finding that EPP was negatively associated with latitude within noncolonial species, suggesting a role of breeding synchrony. Thus, rather than focussing on general explanations for variation in EPP across all species, a future focus should be on how various aspects of ecology or life history might have driven variation in EPP among groups of species or populations of the same species. Hence, we argue that variation in EPP can be partly explained when taking the right perspective. This comprehensive overview, and particularly the dataset provided herein will create a foundation for further studies.