4.5 Article

Female philopatry and its social benefits among Bornean orangutans

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 6, 页码 823-834

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-012-1330-7

关键词

Male dispersal; Female philopatry; Pedigree; Female-female association; Range overlap; Social play

资金

  1. University of Zurich
  2. A. H. Schultz Stiftung
  3. Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI)
  4. Indonesian State Ministry for Research and Technology (RisTek)
  5. Director General Departemen Kehutanan (PHKA), Departamen Dalam Negri
  6. local government in Central Kalimantan
  7. BKSDA Palangkaraya
  8. Bornean Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOSF)
  9. MAWAS in Palangkaraya
  10. Fakultas Biologi Universitas Nasional (UNAS) in Jakarta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Female philopatry in mammals is generally associated with ecological and sometimes social benefits, and often with dispersal by males. Previous studies on dispersal patterns of orangutans, largely non-gregarious Asian great apes, have yielded conflicting results. Based on 7 years of observational data and mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analyses on fecal samples of 41 adult Bornean orangutans () from the Tuanan population, we provide both genetic and behavioral evidence for male dispersal and female philopatry. Although maternally related adult female dyads showed similar home-range overlap as unrelated dyads, females spent much more time in association with known maternal relatives than with other females. While in association, offspring of maternally related females frequently engaged in social play, whereas mothers actively prevented this during encounters with unrelated mothers, suggesting that unrelated females may pose a threat to infants. Having trustworthy neighbors may therefore be a social benefit of philopatry that may be common among solitary mammals, thus reinforcing female philopatric tendencies in such species. The results also illustrate the diversity in dispersal patterns found within the great-ape lineage.

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