Mate guarding and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals

Brotherton, Peter; Komers, Petr E.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139087247.003

Cited by 84 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Mate Defense Hypothesis can explain the evolution of pair-living in some primate species [e.g., Brotherton & Komers, 2003;Fuentes, 2000;Gursky, 2003;Hilgartner et al, 2008;Hilgartner et al, 2012;Palombit, 1996;Palombit, 1999]. In red-bellied lemurs, this hypothesis can be difficult to assess: over the course of 25 years of study by D. Durham, R. Jacobs, D. Overdorff, B. O. Razafindratsima, B. Singletary, S. Tecot, and numerous local field technicians with whom they work, there have been only two instances (both in 2014) in which mating was observed in red-bellied lemurs (J. Krauss, personal communication; Tecot and Baden, unpublished data).…”

Section: Applicability Of Alternative Hypotheses In Red-bellied Lemursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why “monogamy” isn't good enough

Tecot

Singletary²,

Eadie

2015

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rare in mammals but more common in primates, there remains a considerable controversy concerning whether primate species traditionally described as monogamous actually express this highly specialized breeding pattern. Unfortunately the definition of "monogamy" varies greatly, inhibiting our understanding of this trait and two related traits with which monogamy is often conflated: pair-living and pair-bonding. Strepsirrhine primates are useful models to study factors that select for pair-living, pair-bonding, and monogamy because this taxon exhibits high incidences of each trait, in addition to species that exhibit behaviors that reflect combinations of these traits. Several hypotheses have been articulated to help explain the evolution of "monogamy," but again, these hypotheses often conflate pair-living, pair-bonding, and/or monogamy. In this review, we (1) propose clear, discrete, and logical definitions for each trait; (2) review variation in strepsirrhines with respect to these three traits; (3) clarify which of these traits can be explained by existing hypotheses; and (4) provide an example of the applicability of the Resource Defense Hypothesis (RDH) to understand two of these traits, pair-living and pair-bonding, in the red-bellied lemur (Eulemur rubriventer). Available data support the RDH for pair-living in red-bellied lemurs. They live in stable family groups with one adult pair. Both sexes actively codefend territories that overlap little with other pairs' territories. Agonism is extremely rare within groups and intergroup and interspecific agonism varies with food availability. Available data also support the RDH for pair-bonding. Pair-bonds are cohesive year-round. Pairs coordinate behaviors to defend territories with auditory and olfactory signals. Cohesion increases with food abundance and both sexes reinforce bonds. We indicate where additional data will help to more rigorously test the RDH for each trait and encourage others to test alternative hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Applicability Of Alternative Hypotheses In Red-bellied Lemursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why “monogamy” isn't good enough

Tecot

Singletary²,

Eadie

2015

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, social monogamy may arise when females occupy small but discrete ranges, making it difficult for males to monopolize more than one female. Males may choose to form a pair to guard the female from rival males seeking to mate with her (6,11). 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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Males may choose to form a pair to guard the female from rival males seeking to mate with her (6,11). 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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates

Opie

Atkinson

Dunbar

et al. 2013

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

242

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

“…By monopolising a single female, males increase their individual fitness by reducing intra-sexual competition (Brotherton and Komers 2003). However, male mammals usually have greater reproductive rates than females, because they do not have to invest in costly gestation and lactation (Williams 1966).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has led to the evolution of energetically costly strategies such as mate guarding to prevent territory and female take-overs (Brotherton and Komers 2003). Such male tactics seem plausible for explaining the evolution of monogamy, but there are limited empirical data on the potential trade-off between benefits and costs for pair-living males with polygynous tendencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promiscuous tendencies in the round-eared sengi: a male’s perspective

Schubert

Rödel

Pillay

et al. 2011

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although monogamy is interpreted as riskadverse strategy by reducing intra-sexual conflicts, most pair-living males increase their reproductive success by engaging in extra-pair copulations. However, little is known about costs involved in such extra-pair attempts from the male's perspective. We investigated promiscuous tendencies of paired Macroscelides proboscideus (roundeared elephant-shrew or round-eared sengi), a pair-living small mammal occurring in southern Africa. In particular, we measured potential costs of extra-pair attempts for the males. For this, we conducted laboratory experiments, involving interactions between neighbouring male-female pairs. Data collection included direct behavioural observations and establishing the morphological and physiological characteristics of males. Both sexes intruded into the neighbouring area, and initiated sexual behaviour with neighbours of the opposite sex. Males which displayed a higher marking frequency in the neighbouring area received more sexually motivated behaviour from neighbouring females. Resident males attacked intruding males. Aggression experienced by and marking behaviour of intruding males was positively correlated with body mass losses. Furthermore, glucocorticoid levels, determined from analyses of faeces and urine samples, correlated positively with body mass losses and marking behaviour of intruding males, indicating costs of intruding. We conclude that male as well as female round-eared sengis have promiscuous tendencies. Although interactions with neighbouring females may offer potential benefits for males in terms of enhanced reproductive success, males also seem to pay substantial costs, as indicated by body mass losses and elevated stress hormone levels.

show abstract

Mate guarding and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals

Cited by 84 publications

References 0 publications

Why “monogamy” isn't good enough

Why “monogamy” isn't good enough

Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates

Promiscuous tendencies in the round-eared sengi: a male’s perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About