4.5 Article

Factors affecting low resident male siring success in one-male groups of blue monkeys

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 852-861

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/aru060

关键词

alternative mating tactics; male-male competition; paternity; reproductive synchrony; resident tenure

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS05-54747, BCS10-28471, DGE 0333415]
  2. Columbia University Science Fellowship
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. L.S.B. Leakey Foundation
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1028471] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In species that live in one-male/ multi-female groups, resident males have more access to females than do bachelor males and should have a within-group reproductive advantage. We used a genetic analysis of 13 microsatellite loci to assign paternity to 111 offspring born over 10 years in 8 groups of wild blue monkeys. Resident males sired a maximum of 61% of the offspring conceived in their groups, indicating that despite their greater access to females, residents lost a substantial number of offspring to outsiders. A resident was less likely to sire an offspring when multiple females were in conceptive estrus, suggesting that it is difficult to monitor many fertile females simultaneously. Moreover, multiple estrous females likely attract competitor males, whose presence also decreased the probability that a resident sired an offspring. The negative effect of intruders on resident siring success may occur because females prefer competitors or because an increase in the number of intruders increases the challenge of effective mate guarding by a resident, leading him to miss rare mating opportunities. Tenure length did not affect resident siring success. Identifying the factors affecting patterns of paternity within species will help us to better understand the considerable variation in resident male siring success that occurs in one-male groups.

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

4.5
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