4.6 Review

Female competition in chimpanzees

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0077

关键词

resource competition; female transfer; dominance; aggression to immigrants; infanticide

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [LTREB-1052693, DBS-9021946, SBR-9319909, BCS-0452315]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 A1058715]
  3. Duke University
  4. University of Minnesota
  5. Harris Steel Group
  6. Windibrow Foundation
  7. Carnegie Corporation
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1052693] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Female chimpanzees exhibit exceptionally slow rates of reproduction and raise their offspring without direct paternal care. Therefore, their reproductive success depends critically on long-term access to high-quality food resources over a long lifespan. Chimpanzee communities contain multiple adult males, multiple adult females and their offspring. Because males are philopatric and jointly defend the community range while most females transfer to new communities before breeding, adult females are typically surrounded by unrelated competitors. Communities are fission-fusion societies in which individuals spend time alone or in fluid subgroups, whose size depends mostly on the abundance and distribution of food. To varying extents in different populations, females avoid direct competition by foraging alone or in small groups in distinct, but overlapping core areas within the community range to which they show high fidelity. Although rates of aggression are low, females compete for space and access to food. High rank correlates with high reproductive success, and high-ranking females win direct contests for food and gain preferential access to resource-rich sites. Females are aggressive to immigrant females and even kill the newborn infants of community members. The intensity of such aggression correlates with population density. These patterns are compared to those in other species, including humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据