| Literature DB >> 27656085 |
Qiao-Qiao He1, Jia-Jia Wu2, Ting Ji3, Yi Tao1, Ruth Mace2.
Abstract
Models suggest that dispersal patterns will influence age- and sex-dependent helping behavior in social species. Duolocal social systems (where neither sex disperses and mating is outside the group) are predicted to be associated with mothers favoring sons over daughters (because the latter are in reproductive competition with each other). Other models predict daughter-biased investment when benefits of wealth to sons are less than daughters. Here, we test whether sex-biased investment is occurring in the duolocal Mosuo of southwestern China. Using demographic and observational data from Mosuo, we show support for both hypotheses, in that 1) males are more likely to disperse from their natal household if their mother dies, but females are not; 2) a large number of brothers increases the likelihood that both females and males disperse, whereas a large number of sisters only increases female dispersal; 3) mothers help daughters reproduce earlier and reduce death risk of daughter's children, but not sons or sons' children; 4) data on multiple paternity show that female reproductive success does not suffer from multiple partners, and in males multiple mates are associated with higher reproductive success, indicating that mothers can benefit from investing in their sons' mating effort; and 5) gift decisions reveal similar kin effects to those shown in the demographic data, with mothers helping adult daughters and adult sons equally, but helping only her daughter's children, not her son's children. Mosuo mothers may invest resources for parental investment in their daughters and their offspring, while investing in their sons mating effort.Entities:
Keywords: Mosuo; duolocal; grandmother; kin selection; matrilineal; sex-biased investment.
Year: 2016 PMID: 27656085 PMCID: PMC5027622 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arw053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Ecol ISSN: 1045-2249 Impact factor: 2.671
Figure 1Survival curves derived from a complementary log–log regression (see Table 1 for the full model) for dispersal of (a) male (n = 1651) and (b) female (n = 1544) offspring experiencing their mother’s death (line with circle)/not (line with triangle).
Results of EHA on risk of dispersal (n = 29927 person-years for 1544 adult women aged 15 years and over and 31350 for 1651 adult men aged 15 years and over; 375 events for women, and 264 for men)
| Female | Male | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dispersal | Estimate (SE) | Hazard ratio |
| Estimate (SE) | Hazard ratio |
|
| Mother (alive as references category) | ||||||
| Dead | −0.019 (0.158) | 0.982 | 0.906 |
|
|
|
| Father (alive as references category) | ||||||
| Dead | 0.142 (0.125) | 1.153 | 0.254 | −0.042 (0.14) | 0.959 | 0.763 |
| Adult brother number |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Adult sister number |
|
|
| −0.010 (0.047) | 0.99 | 0.823 |
| Birth cohort (<1940 as references category) | ||||||
| 1940 | 0.255 (0.388) | 1.290 | 0.511 | 0.682 (0.366) | 1.977 | 0.062 |
| 1950 | 0.441 (0.329) | 1.554 | 0.180 | 0.41 (0.354) | 1.507 | 0.247 |
| 1960 |
|
|
| 0.663 (0.342) | 1.941 | 0.052 |
| 1970 |
|
|
| 0.473 (0.35) | 1.605 | 0.177 |
| 1980–1997 |
|
|
| −0.626 (0.466) | 0.535 | 0.179 |
| Constant | − |
|
| − |
|
|
We used complementary log–log regression with dispersal (dispersed = 1, stay = 0) as dependent variable. The predictors used in the model are mother dead; father dead as time-varying variables; and adult brother number, adult sister number, and birth cohort as time-invariant variables. Sibling numbers only counted those from the same mother, as it is usually mother’s children who live in the same household; sibling numbers were time-invariant variables, due to timing of leaving home (if ever) not being known for everyone. Significant effects are indicated in bold. SE, standard error.
Results of EHA of child survival during first 6 years (n = 22941 person-years for 2008 males and 1986 females; 40 events of mortality for males and 48 for females)
| Mortality in the first 6 years | Estimate (SE) | Odds ratio |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male as references category) | |||
| Female | 0.181 (0.216) | 1.198 | 0.401 |
| Matri-grandmother (alive as references category) | |||
| Dead |
|
|
|
| Mother’s age at birth (<21 as references category) | |||
| 21–25 | −0.473 (0.287) | 0.623 | 0.099 |
| 26–30 | − |
|
|
| 31–35 | − |
|
|
| 36+ | −0.035 (0.381) | 0.966 | 0.927 |
| Birth cohort (<1950 as references category) | |||
| 1950 | −0.959 (0.594) | 0.383 | 0.107 |
| 1960 | − |
|
|
| 1970 | − |
|
|
| 1980 | − |
|
|
| 1990–2012 | − |
|
|
| Constant | − |
|
|
We used relogit regression for analysis (King and Zeng 2001a, 2001b), with mortality in the first 6 years of child (dead = 1, alive = 0) as dependent variable. The predictors used in the model are matrilineal grandmother dead as time-varying variables, and sex, birth cohort, and maternal age cohort as time-invariant variables. Significant effects are indicated in bold. SE, standard error.
Figure 2Survival curves derived from a complementary log–log regression (see Table 3 for the full model) for fist birth of (a) male (n = 1665) and (b) female (n = 1537) offspring experiencing their mother’s death (line with circle)/not (line with triangle). Hazard ratio became 0 after age 40, thus we restrict the x axis to age 15–40.
Results of EHA of age at first birth (n = 12912 person-years for 1537 adult females aged 15 years and over, and 19360 person-years for 1665 adult males aged 15 years and over; events = 1105 for females and 863 for males)
| Age at first birth | Female | Male | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate (SE) | Hazard ratio |
| Estimate (SE) | Hazard ratio |
| |
| Mother (alive as references category) | ||||||
| Dead | − |
|
| −0.115 (0.11) | 0.891 | 0.294 |
| Father (alive as references category) | ||||||
| Dead | −0.078 (0.089) | 0.925 | 0.383 | 0.044 (0.087) | 1.045 | 0.611 |
| Adult sister number | − |
|
| −0.006 (0.026) | 0.994 | 0.804 |
| Adult brother number | −0.039 (0.024) | 0.962 | 0.114 | 0.029 (0.027) | 1.029 | 0.287 |
| Birth cohort (<1940 as references category) | ||||||
| 1940 |
|
|
| 0.432 (0.215) | 1.541 | 0.804 |
| 1950 |
|
|
| 0.4 (0.202) | 1.492 | 0.287 |
| 1960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1970 |
|
|
| −0.074 (0.189) | 0.929 | 0.696 |
| 1980–1997 | −0.054 (0.152) | 0.947 | 0.721 | − |
|
|
| Occupation (none as references category) | ||||||
| Ever had one | − |
|
| 0.061 (0.071) | 1.063 | 0.391 |
| Constant | − |
|
| − |
|
|
We used complementary log–log regression for men and women separately, with first birth (one has given birth = 1, not given = 0) as dependent variable. The predictors used in the model are mother dead and father dead as time-varying variables, and adult sister number, adult brother number, birth cohort, and occupation as time-invariant variables. Significant effects are indicated in bold. SE, standard error.
Figure 3Effects of birth cohort and partner number on adult offspring number of Mosuo (a) males (n = 1222) and (b) females (n = 1474). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Black bars, ≤1 partner; white bars, >1 partner. *P < 0.05; ‘0.1 > P ≥ 0.05; ns P ≥ 0.1. The reproductive success of males with more than 1 partners was larger than those with one, with the effects significant for men before 1940 (n = 405 males, Mann–Whitney U = 1099.5, z = −2.422, P = 0.015) and marginally significant for those after 1940 (n = 817 males, Mann–Whitney U = 10996, z = −1.776, P = 0.076). Females who had more than 1 partner had slightly more adult offspring than those who had one before 1940 (n = 628 females, Mann–Whitney U = 17711, z = −2.814, P = 0.005) and were not significantly different in the later period (n = 846 females, Mann–Whitney U = 16184, z = −1.207, P = 0.227).
The pattern of gifts given to close kin and others by Mosuo women and men (results of chi-square test, with significant sex differences in number of gifts received indicated in bold)
| Receiver | Male | Female | Chi square |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female giver | Father/mother | 15 | 75 |
|
|
| Brother/sister | 42 | 63 |
|
| |
| Son/daughter | 46 | 50 | 0.167 | 0.683 | |
| Brother’s/sister’s children | 4 | 22 |
|
| |
| Son’s/daughter’s children | 1 | 13 |
|
| |
| Other males/females | 95 | 220 |
|
| |
| Male giver | Father/mother | 10 | 38 |
|
|
| Brother/sister | 19 | 35 |
|
| |
| Son/daughter | 15 | 20 | 0.741 | 0.398 | |
| Brother’s/sister’s children | 3 | 17 |
|
| |
| Son’s/daughter’s children | 0 | 2 | n/a | n/a | |
| Other males/females | 172 | 109 |
|
|
n/a, not applicable.