Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 297–305 | Cite as

Female reproductive strategies in bar-headed geese (Anser indicus): Why are geese monogamous?

  • Jürg Lamprecht


In a semi-captive flock of Anser indicus with a surplus of females, permanent harem groups consisting of one male with one to five females, lasting for up to several years, were regularly observed. Polygynous groups contain one paired female to which the male is most attentive and secondary females which follow the paired male and are tolerated by the pair. Average annual reproductive success was lowest in lone females (0.02 young fledged per year), higher in secondary females (0.23 young) and highest in paired females (0.56 young per year). Differences seemed due to different degrees of male assistance. Secondary females could not be shown to be competitors of paired females in annual reproductive success. Lone females became secondary females mainly after an age of 3 years, i.e. when their chances to pair had dropped significantly. Females were more likely to become secondary instead of paired females in years when the adult sex ratio was more heavily female biased. As sex ratios in wild geese are usually around 1:1 or even biased towards males, females will not usually need to resort to the suboptimal secondary-female strategy. Hence, geese usually live in monogamous pairs instead of harem groups.


Reproductive Success Reproductive Strategy Paired Female Paired Male Secondary Female 
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. Beer JV, Boyd H (1962) Measurements of White-fronted geese wintering at Slimbridge. Wildfowl Trust Ann Rep 14:114–119Google Scholar
  2. Boyd H (1953) On encounters between wild White-fronted geese in winter flocks. Behaviour 5:85–129Google Scholar
  3. Boyd H (1956) Statistics of the British population of the Pink-footed goose. J Anim Ecol 25:253–273Google Scholar
  4. Boyd H, Maltby LS (1980) Weights and primary growth of Brent geese Branta bernicla moulting in the Queen Elisabeth Islands, N.W.T., Canada, 1973–1975. Orn Scand 11:135–141Google Scholar
  5. Brakhage GK (1965) Biology and behavior of tub-nesting Canada geese. J Wildl Manage 29:751–771Google Scholar
  6. Cooch FG, Stirrett GM, Boyer CF (1960) Autumn weights of Blue geese (Chen caerulescens). Auk 77:460–465Google Scholar
  7. Cooke F, Sulzbach DS (1978) Mortality, emigration and separation of mated Snow geese. J Wildl Manage 42:271–280Google Scholar
  8. Cooke F, Bousfield MA, Sadura A (1981) Mate change and reproductive success in the lesser snow goose. Condor 83:322–327Google Scholar
  9. Elder WH (1955) The relation of age and sex to the weights of Pink-footed and Greylag Geese. Wildfowl Trust Ann Rep 7:127–132Google Scholar
  10. Evans ME, Kear J (1978) Weights and measurements of Bewick's swans during winter. Wildfowl 29:118–122Google Scholar
  11. Fabricius E (1981) Male homosexuality in Greylag goose Anser anser. Var Fagelvärld 40:427–446Google Scholar
  12. Fitch MA, Shugart GW (1983) Comparative biology and behavior of monogamous pairs and one male — two female trios of Herring Gulls. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:1–7Google Scholar
  13. Fricke HW (1974) Öko-Ethologie des monogamen Anemonenfisches Amphiprion bicinctus (Freiwasseruntersuchungen aus dem Roten Meer). Z Tierpsychol 36:429–512Google Scholar
  14. Fricke HW (1975) Sozialstruktur und ökologische Spezialisierung von verwandten Fischen (Pomacentridae). Z Tierpsychol 39:492–520Google Scholar
  15. Imber MJ (1968) Sex ratios in Canada goose populations. J Wildl Manage 32:905–920Google Scholar
  16. Kossack CW (1950) Breeding habits of Canada geese under refuge conditions. Am Midl Nat 43:627–649Google Scholar
  17. Lamprecht J (1986a) Structure and causation of the dominance hierarchy in a flock of Bar-headed geese (Anser indicus). Behaviour 96:28–48Google Scholar
  18. Lamprecht J (1986b) Social dominance and reproductive success in a goose flock (Anser indicus). Behaviour 97:50–65Google Scholar
  19. Lamprecht J (1987) Mate guarding in geese: awaiting female receptivity, protection of paternity or support of female feeding? In: Vogel C, Voland E, Rasa OAE (eds) Sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies. Croom Helm, BeckenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamprecht J, Buhrow H (1987) Harem polygyny in Bar-headed geese (Anser indicus). Ardea (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Martin K, Cooch FG, Rockwell RF, Cooke F (1985) Reproductive performance in lesser snow geese: are two parents essential? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:257–263Google Scholar
  22. Matthews GVT, Campbell CRG (1969) Weights and measurements of Greylag Geese in Scotland. Wildfowl Trust Ann Rep 20:86–93Google Scholar
  23. McKinney F (1985) Primary and secondary male reproductive strategies of dabbling ducks. In: Gowaty PA, Mock DW (eds) Avian monogamy. Ornithological Monographs No. 38. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, pp 68–82Google Scholar
  24. Nass RD (1964) Sex- and age-ratio bias of cannon-netted geese. J Wildl Manage 28:522–527Google Scholar
  25. Orians GH (1969) On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am Nat 103:589–603Google Scholar
  26. Owen M, Drent RH, Ogilvie MA, Spanje TM (1978) Numbers, distribution and catching of Barnacle geese Branta leucopsis on the Nordenskioldkyster, Svalbard in 1977. Nork Polarinstitutt Aarbok 1977:247–258Google Scholar
  27. Owen M, Black JM, Liber H (1987) Pair bond duration and the timing of its formation in Barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis). Proc Symp In: Weller M (ed) Waterfowl in winter. Proc Texas A & M and USFW Symp, Galveston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  28. Raveling DG (1968) Weights of Branta canadensis interior during winter. J Wildl Manage 32:412–414Google Scholar
  29. Raveling DG (1970) Dominance relationships and agonistic behavior of Canada geese in winter. Behaviour 37:291–319Google Scholar
  30. Sachs L (1978) Angewandte Statistik. 5. Aufl. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott DK (1980) Functional aspects of the pair bond in wintering Bewick's swans (Cygnus columbianus bewickii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:323–327Google Scholar
  32. Scott DK (in press) Breeding success of Bewick's swans. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. Univ of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegel S (1956) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Teunissen W, Spaans B, Drent R (1985) Breeding success in brent in relation to individual feeding opportunities during spring staging in the wadden sea. Ardea 73:109–119Google Scholar
  35. Wickler W, Seibt U (1981) Monogamy in crustacea and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215–234Google Scholar
  36. Wittenberger JF (1979) The evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. In: Marler P, Vanderbergh JG (eds) Handbook of behavioral neurobiology, Vol 3. Plenum Press, New York, pp 271–349Google Scholar
  37. Wittenberger JF, Tilson RL (1980) The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:197–232Google Scholar
  38. Wright JS, Boyd H (1983) Numbers, age and sex of Greylag and Pink-footed geese shot at Loch Leven National Nature Reserve, 1966–1981. Wildfowl 34:163–167Google Scholar
  39. Würdinger I (1973) Breeding of Bar-headed geese in captivity. Int Zoo Yearbook 13:43–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürg Lamprecht
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für VerhaltensphysiologieSeewiesenFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations