| Literature DB >> 29787573 |
Barbara Tiddi1,2, Michael Heistermann3, Martin K Fahy4, Brandon C Wheeler5.
Abstract
Ecological models of mating systems provide a theoretical framework to predict the effect of the defendability of both breeding resources and mating partners on mating patterns. In resource-based mating systems, male control over breeding resources is tightly linked to female mating preference. To date, few field studies have experimentally investigated the relationship between male resource control and female mating preference in mammals due to difficulties in manipulating ecological factors (e.g., food contestability). We tested the within-group male resource defense hypothesis experimentally in a wild population of black capuchin monkeys (Sapajus nigritus) in Iguazú National Park, Argentina. Sapajus spp. represent an ideal study model as, in contrast to most primates, they have been previously argued to be characterized by female mate choice and a resource-based mating system in which within-group resource monopolization by high-ranking males drives female mating preference for those males. Here, we examined whether females (N = 12) showed a weaker preference for alpha males during mating seasons in which food distribution was experimentally manipulated to be less defendable relative to those in which it was highly defendable. Results did not support the within-group male resource defense hypothesis, as female sexual preferences for alpha males did not vary based on food defendability. We discuss possible reasons for our results, including the possibility of other direct and indirect benefits females receive in exercising mate choice, the potential lack of tolerance over food directed towards females by alpha males, and phylogenetic constraints.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29787573 PMCID: PMC5963770 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of the solicitations GLMM (estimates, SEs, confidence intervals, results of likelihood ratio tests and minimum and maximum of estimates derived when excluding females one at a time).
| Variables | Estimate | SE | lower Cl | upper Cl | χ2 | df | p | min | max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.772 | 0.941 | -0.019 | 4.606 | 1.200 | 2.837 | ||||
| -0.830 | 0.873 | -3.636 | 1.086 | 0.930 | 1 | 0.335 | -2.140 | 0.160 | |
| -0.312 | 0.694 | -1.938 | 1.223 | 0.185 | 1 | 0.667 | -0.993 | 0.383 | |
| 0.077 | 0.524 | -1.070 | 1.385 | 0.020 | 1 | 0.889 | -0.382 | 0.489 |
N = 117 observation days on 9 proceptive females. Female ID was entered as random factors.
(1) not indicated because of having a limited interpretation.
(2) dummy coded with clumped being the reference category.
(3) z-transformed, mean and standard deviation of the original variable were 4.709 and 2.317, respectively.
(4) z-transformed, mean and standard deviation of the original variable were 2.530 and 1.229, respectively.
Fig 1Proportion of solicitations females directed to the alpha males in their group (Mean ± SD) in relation to the experimental platform condition (high versus low resource monopolizability).
Each study female is represented by a unique symbol, and each grey scaled or dashed line connects a given female’s values across the two experimental conditions. Symbols without connecting lines correspond to 6 females observed during only one of the two conditions (see “Sampling year” in Table A in S1 File).
Results of the female copulation pattern GLMM (estimates, SEs, confidence intervals, results of likelihood ratio tests and minimum and maximum of estimates derived when excluding females one at a time).
| Variables | Estimate | SE | lower Cl | upper Cl | χ2 | df | p | min | max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.167 | 0.690 | -1.479 | 1.810 | -0.332 | 0.786 | ||||
| 0.479 | 0.806 | -1.261 | 2.438 | 0.356 | 1 | 0.551 | -0.024 | 1.196 | |
| 0.247 | 0.532 | -0.947 | 1.600 | 0.222 | 1 | 0.638 | -0.195 | 0.878 | |
| 0.160 | 0.392 | -0.820 | 1.145 | 0.167 | 1 | 0.683 | -0.104 | 0.566 | |
| 2.754 | 1.470 | 0.423 | 20.533 | 4.238 | 1 | 0.040 | 2.073 | 18.495 |
N = 65 observation days on 12 proceptive females mating with group males. Female ID was entered as random factors.
(1) not indicated because of having a limited interpretation
(2) dummy coded with clumped being the reference category
(3) z-transformed, mean and standard deviation of the original variable were 4.315 and 2.324, respectively
(4) z-transformed, mean and standard deviation of the original variable were 2.338 and 1.189, respectively
(5) dummy coded with group MAC being the reference category; the very large instability of the estimate (column 'max') was driven by the fact that, in one group (Spot), copulations were monopolized during all but one day, and complete separation occurred when this was excluded.
Fig 2Proportion of copulations females performed with the alpha males in their group (Mean ± SD) in relation to the experimental platform condition (high versus low monopolizability).
Each study female is represented by a unique symbol, and each grey scaled or dashed line connects a given female’s values across the two experimental conditions. Symbols without connecting lines correspond to 7 females observed during only one of the two conditions (see “Sampling year” in Table A in S1 File).
Results of a multi-level mixed-effect negative binomial regression testing instances of co-feeding between females and alpha male as the response variable, female reproductive states as categorical explanatory factors, and controlling for female dominance rank.
Instances of alpha male presence on platforms were used as the exposure variable.
| Variables | Estimate | SE | z | P | Lower CI | Upper CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2.677 | 1.325 | -2.02 | 0.043 | -5.274 | -0.079 | |
| -1.236 | 0.801 | -1.55 | 0.121 | -2.799 | 0.327 | |
| 1.441 | 1.567 | 0.92 | 0.358 | -1.631 | 4.513 | |
| -0.425 | 0.243 | -1.75 | 0.081 | -0.901 | 0.051 |
N = 448 experimental events during the clumped condition (Macuco group: 36 trials, each of them with 7 female-alpha-male co-feeding values; Spot group: 49 trials, each of them with 4 female-alpha-male co-feeding dyadic values). Subject ID and group ID were entered as random factors.
Fig 3Proportion of co-feeding during platform experiments (Mean ± SD) across the three female reproductive states (cycling, non-cycling, and pregnant).
For this analysis we only included data from the high monopolizability condition during the platform experiments.