Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates

Palombit, Ryne A.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(1999)7:4<117::aid-evan2>3.0.co;2-o

Cited by 132 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This hypothesis as it applies to primates, notably the monogamous gibbons (Hylobates spp.) (van Schaik and Dunbar 1990), has been questioned on the basis of comparative data (Palombit 1999;Fuentes 2000;Brockelman 2009), but recent indirect evidence of infanticide in one population of white-handed gibbons suggests an intriguing possibility (Borries et al 2011). Contradictory conclusions about the selective role of infanticide in the evolution of mammalian social monogamy have emerged from recent phylogenetic and life history analyses (Lukas and Clutton-Brock 2013;Opie et al 2013).…”

Section: Social Counterstrategies Of Femalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infanticide as Sexual Conflict: Coevolution of Male Strategies and Female Counterstrategies

Palombit

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

Self Cite

132

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the earliest recognized forms of sexual conflict was infanticide by males, which imposes serious costs on female reproductive success. Here I review two bodies of evidence addressing coevolved strategies of males and females. The original sexual selection hypothesis arguing that infanticide improves male mating success by accelerating the return of females to fertilizable condition has been generally supported in some taxa-notably, some primates, carnivores, rodents, and cetaceans-but not in other taxa. One result of recent research has been to implicate other selective benefits of infanticide by males in various taxa from insects to birds to mammals, such as acquisition of breeding status or improvement of the female breeding condition. In some cases, however, the adaptive significance of male infanticide remains obscure. The second body of data I review is arguably the most important result of recent research: clarifying the possible female counterstrategies to infanticide. These potential counterstrategies span diverse biological systems, ranging from sexual behavior (e.g., polyandrous mating), to physiology (e.g., the Bruce effect), to individual behavior (e.g., maternal aggression), to social strategies (e.g., association with coalitionary defenders of either sex). Although much remains to be studied, these current data provide compelling evidence of sexually antagonistic coevolution surrounding the phenomenon of infanticide.

show abstract

Section: Social Counterstrategies Of Femalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infanticide as Sexual Conflict: Coevolution of Male Strategies and Female Counterstrategies

Palombit

2015

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

Self Cite

132

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been argued that this was the route to social monogamy among small ungulates (12), and a similar suggestion has been used to explain monogamy in other mammals, including primates (6,11). Finally, social monogamy might arise where the risks of infanticide are high and resident males can provide protection against infanticidal males (13)(14)(15)(16). Where lactation is longer than gestation, females are expected to avoid suckling two infants of different ages simultaneously by delaying the return to oestrus after parturition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…There remains no consensus over which of the above hypotheses best explains monogamy in primates. Some researchers have proposed that a combination of explanations may be plausible (16), but others doubt whether it is possible to test between these hypotheses effectively or to infer the historical origin of social monogamy (18).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates

Opie

Atkinson

Dunbar

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

241

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although common in birds, social monogamy, or pair-living, is rare among mammals because internal gestation and lactation in mammals makes it advantageous for males to seek additional mating opportunities. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of social monogamy among mammals: as a male mate-guarding strategy, because of the benefits of biparental care, or as a defense against infanticidal males. However, comparative analyses have been unable to resolve the root causes of monogamy. Primates are unusual among mammals because monogamy has evolved independently in all of the major clades. Here we combine trait data across 230 primate species with a Bayesian likelihood framework to test for correlated evolution between monogamy and a range of traits to evaluate the competing hypotheses. We find evidence of correlated evolution between social monogamy and both female ranging patterns and biparental care, but the most compelling explanation for the appearance of monogamy is male infanticide. It is only the presence of infanticide that reliably increases the probability of a shift to social monogamy, whereas monogamy allows the secondary adoption of paternal care and is associated with a shift to discrete ranges. The origin of social monogamy in primates is best explained by long lactation periods caused by altriciality, making primate infants particularly vulnerable to infanticidal males. We show that biparental care shortens relative lactation length, thereby reducing infanticide risk and increasing reproductive rates. These phylogenetic analyses support a key role for infanticide in the social evolution of primates, and potentially, humans.

show abstract

“…The classical explanation of monogamy in primates-that females' dispersion across a landscape forces males to associate with individual females (14)-does not work for group-living species with strong within-group dominance hierarchies and high-ranked males largely monopolizing mating (15)(16)(17)(18). Also problematic are the suggestions that monogamy was a preferred strategy for reducing the risk of infanticide by strange males (19) and that it emerged because male parental care was indispensable to female reproduction. [Data suggest that paternal care had often evolved after monogamy was already established (20).]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding

Gavrilets

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

144

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A crucial step in recent theories of human origins is the emergence of strong pair-bonding between males and females accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the male-to-male conflict over mating and an increased investment in offspring. How such a transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could be achieved is puzzling. Many species would, indeed, be much better off evolutionarily if the effort spent on male competition over mating was redirected to increasing female fertility or survivorship of offspring. Males, however, are locked in a "social dilemma," where shifting one's effort from "appropriation" to "production" would give an advantage to free-riding competitors and therefore, should not happen. Here, I first consider simple models for four prominent scenarios of the human transition to pair-bonding: communal care, mate guarding, food for mating, and mate provisioning. I show that the transition is not feasible under biologically relevant conditions in any of these models. Then, I show that the transition can happen if one accounts for male heterogeneity, assortative pair formation, and evolution of female choice and faithfulness. This process is started when low-ranked males begin using an alternative strategy of female provisioning. At the end, except for the top-ranked individuals, males invest exclusively in provisioning females who have evolved very high fidelity to their mates. My results point to the crucial importance of female choice and emphasize the need for incorporating between-individual variation in theoretical and empirical studies of social dilemmas and behaviors.food-for-mating | self-domestication

show abstract

Infanticide and the evolution of pair bonds in nonhuman primates

Cited by 132 publications

References 87 publications

Infanticide as Sexual Conflict: Coevolution of Male Strategies and Female Counterstrategies

Infanticide as Sexual Conflict: Coevolution of Male Strategies and Female Counterstrategies

Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates

Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About