4.2 Article

Unbiased sex-specific survival in Alpine chamois

Journal

MAMMALIAN BIOLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 2, Pages 135-139

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2011.09.007

Keywords

Rupicapra rupicapra; Capture-mark-resight; Polygyny; Sexual dimorphism; Survivorship

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many polygynous ungulates show higher mortality of males than of females, because of the intense male-male competition during the rut and the costs associated with the development of sexual-size dimorphism. In the weakly dimorphic Alpine chamois Rupicapra rupicapra the occurrence of differential sex-specific survival strategies is controversial. To date, only two studies investigated the survivorship of males and females in this species, producing conflicting results: these works, based on the use of life tables, require confirmation from researches carried out on living populations. We assessed the survival pattern of a protected Alpine chamois population in the Swiss National Park, where 116 individuals were marked and monitored over 13 years (1996-2008). We tested for sex-, age- and year-dependence of survival by means of capture-mark-resight models. Resighting probabilities were sex-dependent, and survival rates were time-dependent. Females had higher resighting probabilities (0.84) than males (0.74). All over the time periods, sex had a weak influence on survival probability (males = 0.91; females = 0.92) and survival rates remained surprisingly high until late age (1 year = 0.90; 2-7 years = 0.91; 8+ years = 0.92). The growing evidence for a high adult survival and a weak differential mortality of the two sexes, together with the highly seasonal sexual-size dimorphism observed for Alpine chamois, might indicate the occurrence of a unique conservative survival strategy in both sexes and a low-risk mating strategy by males. (C) 2011 Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Saugetierkunde. Published by Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available