Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Social Monogamy in Mammals
Transcript of Social Monogamy in Mammals
2) Group Living
3) Evolution of Monogamy
a) Proximate Causes
i) Female Distribution
b) Ultimate Causes
i) Bi-Parental Care
iii) Infanticide threat in larger mammals
4) Evolutionary Consequences
a) Sexual Dimorphism
5) Monogamy and Cooperative Breeding Monogamous Pairing general relationship between an adult male and an adult female for the purpose of reproduction
common in birds, but there are examples of this occurrence in reptiles, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and mammals Monogamy in Mammals a long term living arrangement between an adult male and female
living conditions and patterns only
sharing the same territory, obtaining food resources, or parental tasks
~3-5% of all mammalian species are socially monogamous
lifelong monogamy is very rare
majority of monogamous mammals practice sequential social monogamy
short-term monogamy which involves partnership termination while one’s partner is still alive
lasts for at least one breeding season
occurs in groups where female range is relatively small Living in Groups Many Advantages:
•Susceptibility to predation
alarm calls in response to a possible invasion by a predator
easier to hunt in a group
•Localization of resources
localization of an adequate lodge area is more beneficial in a group setting
beavers Facultative Monogamy (Type I) male is not fully tied down to one female
other opportunities not available
lack of paternal care
adult pairs rarely spend time as a ‘family’
occupy low densities over a large area of land
Pacaranas Obligate Monogamy (Type II) family-oriented species
females cannot rear their young without the help of their partners
high paternal investment
delayed sexual maturation
juveniles contributing greatly to the rearing of their siblings indris african dormice hutias a) Female Distribution (Proximate) b) Bi-parental care (Ultimate) e) Sexual Dimorphism as a Revolutionary Consequence d) Infanticide (Ultimate) c) Hormones (Ultimate) one of the best predictors of the evolution of monogamy
low female availability or high female dispersal males unable to monopolize more than one mate over a period of time japanese serow elephant shrews kirk’s dik-dik extensively studied in the California mouse
strictly monogamous mates pair for a long period of time
low extra-pair paternity
if female removed, male the only source of survival
females don't succeed raising their offspring-- too costly! Key Factors •Intrinsic Ability to Aid Offspring:
the male’s ability to exhibit parental care.
closer association between the male and his offspring in small groups composed of related individuals.
•High Costs to Polygyny:
males could evolve to care about their offspring in cases where females were too dispersed
individuals stay within their known territories (too costly)
in some species, males are able to identify their own offspring
paternity certainty could be a factor deciding about biparental care. dwarf lemurs dungarian hamsters dasyproctids phenotypic differences between a male and a female of the same species
males smaller than females
mates don't compete to the same extent as polygynous sexual dimorphism induced in long-term pair bonding killing of the offspring by adult individuals
adaptive strategy to enhance reproductive success of a species
common in groups where male ratio to female and male tenure are low
male nutritional gain and mating partners
female's benefit gaining access to food resources or shelter
frequency of infanticide often occurs with the presence of a new/ unrelated male in a given territory
rates of infanticide are very low in monogamous groups of larger mammals
males care for his offspring and their mother by protecting them from predators gibbons vasopressin and oxytocin
induces male Prairie Voles to mate with one female and stay by her side to protect her difference in the distribution of protein receptors in the brains of monogamous vs. polygamous Voles
polygamous Voles have less receptors, they remain timid at all times
aggressive behavior in typically timid monogamous male Vole towards other strange males Voles injected with substance that blocked either vasopressin or oxytocin
Vole males that were injected with oxytocin blocker remained with their usual, aggressive, after-sex behavior
ones that were injected with vasopressin blocker remained timid and displayed behavior similar to polygamous Voles vasopressin is responsible for the aggressive behavior in male Prairie Voles
vasopressin is also responsible for forming attachment between the male and a female of his choice Evolution social system where individuals take care of offspring other than their own
provisioning for food
protection from predators
certain species care for their young in assistance of non-breeding helpers
non-breeding helpers’ benefit to maximize their fitness by assisting in the rearing of the young Mongooses Porcupines New World Monkeys References:
Agrell, J., Wolff, J.O., & Ylonen, H. (1998). Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: costs and consequences. Oikos (83) 3, 507-517. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/5959
Birkhead, T.R., & Møller, A.P. (1992). Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences. London: Academic Press.
Borries, C., Savini, T., & Koenig, A. (2010). Social monogamy and the threat of infanticide in larger mammals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(4), 685–693. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1070-5
Brotherton, P. N. M., & Komers, P. E. (2003). Mate guarding and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals. In U. R. Reichard & C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals (pp. 42–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fackelmann, K.A. (1993). Hormone of monogamy: the prairie vole and the biology of mating. Science News (144) 22, 360-361+. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/sciencejournals/docview/197458412/13C9862FEE95D54E9F/1?accountid=8204
Geary, D. C. (2005). Evolution of paternal investment. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 483-505). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kleiman, D.G. (1977). Monogamy in Mammals. The Quarterly Review of Biology (52) 1, 39-69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2824293
Kleiman, D. G., & Malcolm, J. R. (1981). The Evolution of Male Parental Investment ¡ n Mammals. In D. J. Gubernick & P. H. Klopier (Eds.), Parental Care in Mammals.
Komers, P.E. (1996). Obligate monogamy without paternal care in Kirk’s dikdik. Animal Behavior (51) 131-140. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347296900111
Komers, P.E., & Brotherton, P. N. M. (1997). Female space use is the best predictor of monogamy in mammals. Animal Behaviour (51) 1, 131-140. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347296900111
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. (2012). Cooperative breeding and monogamy in mammalian societies. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 279(1736), 2151–6. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2468
Moller, A. P. (2003). The evolution of monogamy: mating relationships, parental care and sexual selection. In H. . Ulrich & C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals (pp. 29–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munshi-South, J. (2007). Extra-pair paternity and the evolution of testis size in a behaviorally monogamous tropical mammal, the large treeshrew (Tupaia tana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol (62), 201-212. Retrieved from http://nycevolution.org/pdf/MunshiSouth.2007.BES.pdf
Reichard, U. H. (2003). Monogamy: past and present. In H. Ulrich, & C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals (pp. 3-25). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Ribble, D. O. (1991). The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 161-166.
Ribble, D. O. & Salvioni, M. (1990) Social organization and nest co-occupancy in Peromyscus californicus, a monogamous rodent. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 9-15.
Roberts, R., Williams, J., Wang, A., & Carter, C. (1998). Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: influence of the sire and geographical variation. Animal behaviour, 55(5), 1131–40. doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0659
Solomon, N. G., & French, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Cooperative Breeding in Mammals (p. 408). New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6_brrHFGmEcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=monogamy+and+cooperative+breeding+in+mammals&ots=is-sb684uc&sig=H0V0Z6XSVfL0DD_aXVkRXorR0Sg#v=onepage&q=monogamy and cooperative breeding in mammals&f=false
Url, S., Stephen, F., & Wigginton, D. (2013). International Association for Ecology Environmental Influences on the Sexual Dimorphism in Body Size of Western Bobcats Author ( s ): F . Stephen Dobson and John D .
Wigginton Reviewed work ( s ):, 108(4), 610–616. Stats &
on birds HUMANS! Humans :/ elephant shrew agoutis grey duiker marmoset tamarins beaver Questions? Suggestions? etc :)