| Literature DB >> 26863300 |
Stacy Rosenbaum1, Jean Paul Hirwa2, Joan B Silk3,4, Linda Vigilant5, Tara S Stoinski6.
Abstract
Sexually selected infanticide is an important source of infant mortality in many mammalian species. In species with long-term male-female associations, females may benefit from male protection against infanticidal outsiders. We tested whether mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) mothers in single and multi-male groups monitored by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund's Karisoke Research Center actively facilitated interactions between their infants and a potentially protective male. We also evaluated the criteria mothers in multi-male groups used to choose a preferred male social partner. In single male groups, where infanticide risk and paternity certainty are high, females with infants <1 year old spent more time near and affiliated more with males than females without young infants. In multi-male groups, where infanticide rates and paternity certainty are lower, mothers with new infants exhibited few behavioral changes toward males. The sole notable change was that females with young infants proportionally increased their time near males they previously spent little time near when compared to males they had previously preferred, perhaps to encourage paternity uncertainty and deter aggression. Rank was a much better predictor of females' social partner choice than paternity. Older infants (2-3 years) in multi-male groups mirrored their mothers' preferences for individual male social partners; 89% spent the most time in close proximity to the male their mother had spent the most time near when they were <1 year old. Observed discrepancies between female behavior in single and multi-male groups likely reflect different levels of postpartum intersexual conflict; in groups where paternity certainty and infanticide risk are both high, male-female interests align and females behave accordingly. This highlights the importance of considering individual and group-level variation when evaluating intersexual conflict across the reproductive cycle.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26863300 PMCID: PMC4749219 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147441
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Behavior variable definitions.
| Behavior | Definition | Directional? | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within 2m of another animal, regardless of activity. | No | IPS | |
| One animal moves within 2m of another animal and remains there at least 5 sec; one animal moves outside of 2m range after remaining there at least 5 sec. | Yes | CFS | |
| One animal manipulates another’s pelage with mouth or fingers. | Yes | CFS | |
| One animal rests any body part on any part of another’s body for at least 5 sec. | When observed | CFS | |
| Individual gets up and walks directly in the path of an individual leaving a resting or feeding space. Must be within 2m and 5 sec of the first animal leaving; must walk in path for at least 5m. | Yes | CFS |
*IPS = Instantaneous point sampling
^CFS = Continuous focal animal sampling.
Male-female dyads containing dominant silverbacks.
| Female condition | 0.685 | 0.050 | 13.79 | 0.588 | 0.783 | MYI | |
| Group type | -0.672 | 0.174 | -3.87 | -1.012 | -0.331 | Single male = 24 Multi-male = 52 | |
| Fem cond x group type | -0.522 | 0.069 | -7.51 | -0.658 | -0.386 | ||
| Constant | -1.854 | 0.140 | -13.24 | 0.000 | -2.129 | -1.580 | |
| Female condition | 0.431 | 0.134 | 3.23 | 0.169 | 0.693 | MYI = 15 WYI = 27 | |
| Group type | -0.551 | 0.177 | -3.11 | -0.898 | -0.204 | Single male = 15 Multi-male = 27 | |
| Constant | -1.513 | 0.130 | -11.65 | 0.000 | -1.767 | -1.258 | |
| Female condition | 0.199 | 0.140 | 1.42 | 0.156 | -0.076 | 0.473 | MYI = 15 WYI = 27 |
| Group type | -0.447 | 0.162 | -2.76 | -0.765 | -0.130 | Single male = 15 Multi-male = 27 | |
| Constant | -1.562 | 0.117 | -13.37 | 0.000 | -1.791 | -1.333 | |
t = Comparison of females with and without young infants; reference category was females without young infants.
x = Comparison of single male versus multi-male groups; reference category was single male groups.
yMYI = Mothers of young infants.
^WYI = Females without young infants.
Fig 1Females in single male groups were more likely to be in close (2m) proximity to males when they had a young infant.
Females in multi-male groups were more likely to be near dominant males than non-dominant males, but the proportion of point samples they were near males was similar regardless of whether they had young infants (p = 0.100).
Fig 2Proportionally, females in multi-male groups increased their time near males they had previously spent little time near more than they increased time near males they previously preferred (p = 0.050).
All male-female dyads in multi-male groups.
| Female choice rank | 0.012 | 0.006 | 1.96 | 0.000 | 0.023 | α = 30, β = 29, γ = 28, δ = 12 | |
| Silverback dominance rank (all) | -0.010 | 0.005 | -1.91 | -0.021 | 0.000 | α = 23, β = 26, γ = 25, δ = 25 | |
| Constant | 0.007 | 0.012 | 0.61 | 0.543 | -0.016 | 0.030 | |
| Female choice rank | 0.010 | 0.006 | 1.74 | -0.001 | 0.022 | α = 30, β = 29, γ = 28, δ = 11 | |
| Silverback dominance rank (all) | -0.011 | 0.005 | -2.02 | -0.021 | -0.000 | α = 23, β = 26, γ = 25, δ = 24 | |
| Constant | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.88 | 0.378 | -0.012 | 0.033 | |
*Males were grouped by the proportion of point samples each female spent in close proximity to them in relation to all other available males, when the females did not have young infants. The male a female was in close proximity to most often was ranked a 1, second most often a 2, etc. Females with young infants increased the proportion of point samples in close proximity to silverbacks they previously were rarely close to, more than they increased the proportion of samples near previously preferred silverbacks.
Fig 3Females with young infants spent more time resting in contact with dominant males than females without young infants did.
Females in single male groups appeared to drive this result, though overall rates of resting in contact were higher in single male than in multi-male groups regardless of whether females had young infants.
Male-female dyads containing dominant silverbacks.
| Female condition | 0.013 | 0.005 | 2.46 | 0.003 | 0.024 | MYI | |
| Group type | -0.015 | 0.006 | -2.50 | -0.027 | -0.003 | Single male = 14 Multi-male = 35 | |
| Constant | 0.016 | 0.005 | 3.20 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.025 | |
| Female condition | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.37 | 0.171 | -0.001 | 0.003 | MYI = 21 WYI = 36 |
| Group type | -0.002 | 0.002 | -0.72 | 0.472 | -0.006 | 0.003 | Single male = 13 Multi-male = 44 |
| Constant | 0.002 | 0.002 | 1.19 | 0.235 | -0.001 | 0.006 | |
| Female condition | 0.511 | 0.308 | 1.66 | -0.093 | 1.116 | MYI = 22 WYI = 35 | |
| Group type | -1.818 | 0.332 | -5.47 | -2.469 | -1.167 | Single male = 15 Multi-male = 42 | |
| Constant | -2.815 | 0.211 | -13.32 | 0.000 | -3.229 | -2.401 | |
t = Comparison of females with and without young infants; reference category is females without young infants.
x = Comparison of single male versus multi-male groups; reference category is single male groups.
yMYI = Mothers of young infants.
^WYI = Females without young infants.
Fig 4Four representative example distributions of the proportion of point samples individual females in multi-male groups spent with each available silverback when they had young infants (black bars), and when they did not (grey bars).
Agreement of genetic paternity and male dominance rank with mother and infant social partner preference, operationalized as proportion of point samples spent in close proximity.
| Rank of mother’s preferred male social partner when was <1 year | Rank of infant’s genetic father when infant was conceived | Rank of infant’s preferred male social partner at 2–3 years | Mother and infant prefer same male partner? | Mother most prefer infant’s genetic father? | Infant most prefer genetic father? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | 3 | Infant died | N/A | No | N/A |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No | No |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | ? (NC) | 1 | Yes | N/A | N/A |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | 4 (NC) | 1 | Yes | N/A | N/A |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | No | Yes | No |
| 1 & 2 (Tied) | 3 | 1 | Yes | No | No |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No | No |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | Blackback | 2 | Yes | No | No |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | No | No | No |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | Yes | No | No |
| 2 | Unknown | 2 | Yes | Unknown | Unknown |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | Yes | No | No |
| 89% agreement | 50% agreement | 47% agreement | |||
NC = not co-resident in infant’s social group after birth.
*Mother was in close proximity to each of the top 2 ranking silverbacks for 7% of point samples; infant was in close proximity for 8% (dominant silverback) and 0% (beta silverback) of point samples.
**Silverback was beta ranked when infant was conceived and born, dominant when infant was 2–3 years old.
^Blackbacks are males ages 8–11, and are of subordinate rank to silverbacks.
Summary of females’ behavioral changes when they had young infants (<1 year old) relative to when they did not.
| Did females with young infants… | Single male groups | Multi-male groups |
|---|---|---|
| increase close proximity to males? | Yes | No |
| increase active affiliation with males? | Yes | No |
| distribute time amongst males differently? | N/A | No |
| N/A | Yes |
*Sample size of females with young infants in single male groups prevented statistical significance testing of group type (single male versus multi-male) and female condition (with/without young infants) interaction effects. However, in single male groups females with young infants appeared to rest in contact (Fig 3), follow, and groom with males more than either females without young infants in single male groups, or females in either condition in multi-male groups (see text under Results, Prediction 2, Dominant silverbacks).
Relative fit of models predicting females’ male social partner preferences when they had young infants.
| Model | LL | K | ΔAICc | ωAICc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank & Paternity | 272.377 | 4 | 0 | 0.441 |
| Rank | 273.728 | 4 | 0.43 | 0.356 |
| Rank*Paternity | 271.984 | 5 | 1.55 | 0.203 |
| Paternity | 300.973 | 6 | 54.92 | <0.000 |
LL = log likelihood; K = number of parameters estimated
ΔAICc = adjusted AIC difference values; ωAICc = adjusted
AIC weights.