4.5 Article

Sexual conflict in chacma baboons, Papio hamadryas ursinus: absent males select for proactive females

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 77, Issue 5, Pages 1217-1225

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.02.003

Keywords

chacma baboon; female control; infanticide; infant protection; mating rate; Papio hamadryas ursinus; polyandry

Funding

  1. University of Bolton
  2. Wingate Foundation Scholarship
  3. Leverhulme Research Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We argue that, in the absence of an infanticidal threat from resident males, female chacma baboons favour polyandry because it may predispose multiple males to protect their infants from infanticide by immigrant males. This assumes that the most likely sire, or principal protector, of an infant may often be absent during its period of vulnerability, thereby creating the need for additional protection. Accordingly, we found that, on average, 47% of principal protectors were absent for at least part of an infant's vulnerable period. We predicted that, to secure additional protection, females should attempt to augment the paternity estimates of as many males as possible and, therefore, should seek to influence overall patterns of mating. In line with this prediction, we found that females actively solicited copulations from all guarding males and did so irrespective of their rank or the underlying probability of ovulation. By these means, females were able to elevate significantly the mating success, and presumably, in turn, the estimated total paternity probabilities, of these males. The apparently indiscriminate nature of the female strategy highlights how, in species where female choice is limited, females may be forced to maximize the potential of all mating opportunities afforded them by intermale competition. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available