Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats

III. Mating systems
  • J. W. Bradbury
  • S. L. Vehrencamp


  1. 1.

    A general model of mating system evolution in mammals is developed, which takes into account the different male strategies of resource defense, female group defense, and male mating aggregations. The critical environmental variables determining differential defensibility of females and resources are identified by generalizing the resource defense model of Orians (1969). The model is then applied to available data on African antelopes (Jarman, 1974) to establish a set of hypothetical relations between certain patterns of habitat use and mating structures. The resulting relations are only likely to apply to species in which food determines female dispersion and in which any resource defense exhibited by males is directed towards food supplies.

  2. 2.

    The relations developed for antelopes are then compared to recently published data on mating systems in five neotropical emballonurid bats (Bradbury and Vehrencamp, 1976a).

  3. 3.

    Antelopes and the bats are found to share the following features. Species living in wet and stable forests tend to be fine-grained socially and to have groups consisting of monogamous pairs or nested male-female territories. Species in more seasonal habitats show an inverse relation between the size stability of groups and the duration of use of a given foraging site. As the model predicts, in both groups resource defense occurs where groups are least stable and female defense where groups are most stable. Also as the model predicts, the numbers of females accessible to each male and the number of reproductive males per group can be anticipated in each of the two taxa wherever sufficient data for the critical variables are available.

  4. 4.

    Antelopes and bats differ in the following ways. Whereas body size is a good predictor of antelope habitat use and social dispersions, it is a poor predictor for emballonurid patterns. Similarly, although the numbers of females per male generally increase with group size in antelopes, this correlation does not hold for the bats in this study. These differences lead to the conclusion that application of the general model cannot be simplified by measurement of a few variables such as body size or group size, but instead will generally require actual measurements of the critical resource dispersion parameters in the field.



Mating System Dispersion Parameter Group Resource Size Stability Group Defense 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, R.D.: The evolution of social behavior. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 325–383 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. Bell, R.H.V.: The use of the herb layer by grazing ungulates in the Serengeti. In: Animal populations in relation to their food resources (ed. A. Watson), pp. 111–123. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications 1970Google Scholar
  3. Bradbury, J., Emmons, L.: Social organization of some Trinidad bats. I. Emballonuridae. Z. Tierpsych. 36, 137–183 (1974)Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury, J., Vehrencamp, S.: Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats. I. Field Studies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1, 337–381 (1976a)Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, J., Vehrencamp, S.: Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats. II. A model for the determination of group size. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1, 383–404 (1976b)Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J.L.: The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull. 76, 160–169 (1964)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J.L.: Territorial behavior and population regulation in birds. Wilson Bull. 81, 293–329 (1969)Google Scholar
  8. Brown, L.E.: Home range and movement of small mammals. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 18, 111–142 (1966)Google Scholar
  9. Buechner, H.K., Schloeth, R.: Ceremonial mating behavior in Uganda Kob (Adenota kob thomasii). Z. Tierpsych. 22, 209–225 (1965)Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, F.L., MacMillen, R.E.: Threshold model of feeding territoriality and test with a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Science 194, 639–642 (1976)Google Scholar
  11. Charles-Dominique, P.: Ecologie et vie sociale de Galago demidovii. Z. Tierpsych., Beih. 9, 7–41 (1972)Google Scholar
  12. Cody, M.L., Cody, C.J.: Territory size, clutch size and food in populations of wrens. Condor 74, 473–477 (1972a)Google Scholar
  13. Cody, M.L., Cody, B.J.C.: Areal versus lineal territories in the wren, Troglodytes troglodytes. Condor 74, 477–478 (1972b)Google Scholar
  14. Denham, W.W.: Energy relations and some basic properties of primate social organization. Amer. Anthropologist 73, 77–95 (1971)Google Scholar
  15. Downes, J.A.: The swarming and mating flight of Diptera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 14, 271–298 (1969)Google Scholar
  16. Dubost, G.: L'organisation spatiale et sociale de Muntiacus reevesé Ogdby 1839 en semi-liberté. Mammalia 34, 331–355 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, J.F., Muckenhirn, N.A., Rudran, R.: The relation between ecology and social structure in primates. Science 176, 863–874 (1972)Google Scholar
  18. Estes, R.D.: The comparative behavior of Grant's and Thompson's gazelles. J. Mammal. 48, 189–209 (1967)Google Scholar
  19. Estes, R.D.: Territorial behavior of the wildebeest. Z. Tierpsych. 26, 284–370 (1969)Google Scholar
  20. Fenton, M.B.: Summer activity of Myotis lucifugus at hibernacula in Ontario, Canada. Canad. J. Zool. 47, 597–602 (1969)Google Scholar
  21. Fretwell, S.D.: Populations in a seasonal environment. Monograph #5: Monographs in population biology. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press 1972Google Scholar
  22. Fretwell, S.D., Lucas, H.L.: On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical Development. Acta biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1969)Google Scholar
  23. Gargett, V.: The spacing of black eagles in the Matopos, Rhodesia. Ostrich 46, 1–44 (1975)Google Scholar
  24. Genest, H., Dubost, G.: Pair-living in the mara (Dolichotis patagonum) Mammalia 38, 155–162 (1974)Google Scholar
  25. Gill, F.B., Wolf, L.L.: Economics of feeding territoriality in the golden-winged sunbird. Ecology 56, 333–345 (1975)Google Scholar
  26. Hall, K.R.L., DeVore, I.: Baboon social behavior. In: Primate behavior. (ed. I. DeVore), pp. 53–110. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965Google Scholar
  27. Holm, C.H.: Breeding sex ratios, territoriality, and reproductive success in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Ecology 54, 356–365 (1973)Google Scholar
  28. Holmes, R.T.: Differences in population density, territoriality, and food supply of dunlin on arctic and sub-arctic tundra. In: Animal populations in relation to their resources (ed. A. Watson), pp. 303–319. Oxford: Blackwell Press 1970Google Scholar
  29. Jarman, P.J.: The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behavior 48, 215–267 (1974)Google Scholar
  30. Klingel, H.: Social behavior of African equidae. Zoologica Africana 7, 175–186 (1972)Google Scholar
  31. Klomp, H.: Regulation of the size of bird populations by means of territorial behavior. Netherl. J. Zool. 22, 456–488 (1972)Google Scholar
  32. Krebs, J.R.: Territory and breeding density in the great tit, Parus major. Ecology 52, 2–22 (1971)Google Scholar
  33. Kummer, H.: Social organization of Hamadryas baboons. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 1968Google Scholar
  34. Lopez-Forment, W.: Some ecological aspects of the bat Balantiopteryx plicata plicata, Peters, 1867 (Chiroptera: Emballonuridae) in Mexico. M.S. Thesis, Cornell Univ. Ithaca, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  35. McNab, B.K.: Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Amer. Naturalist 97, 133–140 (1963)Google Scholar
  36. Orians, G.H.: On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Amer. Naturalist 103, 589–603 (1969)Google Scholar
  37. Schoener, T.W.: Models of optimal size for solitary predators. Amer. Naturalist 103, 277–313 (1969)Google Scholar
  38. Schoener, T.W.: Theory of feeding strategies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 369–404 (1971)Google Scholar
  39. Stenger, J.: Food habits and available food of ovenbirds in relation to territory size. Auk 75, 335–346 (1958)Google Scholar
  40. Tannenbaum, B.: Reproductive strategies in the white-lined bat. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell Univ. Ithaca, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  41. Treisman, M.: Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. I. Models for concealment and evasion. Anim. Behav. 23, 779–800 (1975a)Google Scholar
  42. Treisman, M.: Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. II. An economic model for predatorprey interaction. Anim. Behav. 23, 801–825 (1975b)Google Scholar
  43. Verner, J.: Evolution of polygamy in the long-billed marsh wren. Ecology 18, 252–261 (1964)Google Scholar
  44. Verner, J., Willson, M.F.: The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47, 143–147 (1966)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Bradbury
    • 1
  • S. L. Vehrencamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations