4.5 Article

Socioecological influences on the reproductive success of female mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei)

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 6, Pages 919-931

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0321-y

Keywords

mountain gorilla; female reproductive success; dominance rank; group size; feeding competition; socioecological model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the past few decades, socioecological models have been developed to explain the relationships between the ecological conditions, social systems, and reproductive success of primates. Feeding competition, predation pressures, and risk of infanticide are predicted to influence how female reproductive success (FRS) depends upon their dominance rank, group size, and mate choices. This paper examines how those factors affected the reproductive success of female mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) of the Virunga Volcanoes, Rwanda from 1967-2004. Reproductive success was measured through analyses of interbirth intervals, infant survival, and surviving infant birth rates using data from 214 infants born to 67 females. Mountain gorillas were predicted to have within-group scramble feeding competition, but we found no evidence of lower FRS in larger groups, even as those groups became two to five times larger than the population average. The gorillas are considered to have negligible within-group contest competition, yet higher ranked mothers had shorter interbirth intervals. Infant survival was higher in multimale groups, which was expected because infanticide occurs when the male dies in a one-male group. The combination of those results led to higher surviving birth rates for higher ranking females in multimale groups. Overall, however, the socioecological factors accounted for a relatively small portion of the variance in FRS, as expected for a species that feeds on abundant, evenly distributed foliage.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available