Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 11, pp 1731–1743 | Cite as

Simultaneous GPS tracking reveals male associations in a solitary carnivore

Original Paper

Abstract

In hypercarnivorous species, females have large spatial requirements to meet their nutritional needs, and food competition among females is intense. As a result, females are typically solitary and territorial, and solitary males compete for access to dispersed females. Yet, largely anecdotal reports indicate that facultative male sociality may be more common in solitary carnivores than previously thought. We studied spatial interactions among fossas (Cryptoprocta ferox), Madagascar's largest carnivore, using simultaneous GPS tracking of 13 adult individuals to determine patterns of sex-specific spatial distribution and sociality. Male home ranges were larger than those of females, male home ranges overlapped more with those of other males than those of females with other females. Whereas some males were solitary, a subset of adult males was found to have very high home range overlap, high rates of co-location within <50 m, low minimum inter-individual distances, and significantly positive “dynamic interaction”. These associated dyads sometimes, but not always, were close relatives. The fact that solitary and associated males coexist in this population raises interesting questions concerning constraints and flexibility of social tolerance. This study yielded preliminary indications that female distribution appears to be primarily structured by resource competition, whereas male sociality seems to depend on demographic chance events, yet unknown proximate determinants of social tolerance, and it is associated with somatic and reproductive advantages. Male associations among carnivores are therefore more widespread and appear to be based on a wider range of factors than previously thought.

Keywords

Social organization Carnivores Cryptoprocta ferox GPS telemetry Male sociality Dynamic interaction test 

Supplementary material

265_2013_1581_Fig4_ESM.jpg (75 kb)
Fig. 1

Selected plots of MCP home ranges per sex and month. Home ranges (colored lines) are presented within the Kirindy Forest (green contours) and marked individually (females F1–F4 on the left, males M1–M9 on the right). Ranges of the month stated are in thicker lines than those from other years (males) or months (females), which were included as additional information. For female ranges, resource information such as the course of a river (blue) and a central unforested area (green contour) was additionally provided. Female F4 (lower left) was tracked singly and therefore plotted with potential ranges of other females and its 50–90 % kernel ranges. For male ranges, additional information is provided for known and assumed locations of mating trees (red hash) in the area. Members of a male association are denoted with a “+” between their IDs. (JPEG 74 kb)

265_2013_1581_MOESM1_ESM.tif (732 kb)
High-resolution image (TIFF 732 kb)
265_2013_1581_Fig5_ESM.jpg (25 kb)
Fig. 2

Cumulative probabilities of observed (red circles) and expected (black line) inter-individual distances for simultaneously tracked female–female dyads. Expected values were calculated according to Doncaster (1990) from all possible n2 distances between n positions of both individuals. (JPEG 24 kb)

265_2013_1581_MOESM2_ESM.tif (206 kb)
High-resolution image (TIFF 206 kb)
265_2013_1581_Fig6_ESM.jpg (115 kb)
Fig. 3

Cumulative probabilities of observed (red circles) and expected (black line) inter-individual distances for simultaneously tracked male–male dyads sorted by ID. Expected values were calculated according to Doncaster (1990) from all possible n2 distances between n positions of both individuals. (JPEG 115 kb)

265_2013_1581_MOESM3_ESM.tif (829 kb)
High-resolution image (TIFF 829 kb)
265_2013_1581_Fig7_ESM.jpg (120 kb)
Fig. 4

Cumulative probabilities of observed (red circles) and expected (black line) inter-individual distances for simultaneously tracked female–male dyads sorted by ID of the female. Expected values were calculated according to Doncaster (1990) from all possible n2 distances between n positions of both individuals. (JPEG 120 kb)

265_2013_1581_MOESM4_ESM.tif (1 mb)
High-resolution image (TIFF 1,074 kb)
265_2013_1581_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
ESM Tables(PDF 49 kb)

References

  1. Altmann J (1990) Primate males go where the females are. Anim Behav 39:193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker PJ, Funk SM, Harris S, White PCL (2000) Flexible spatial organization of urban foxes, Vulpes vulpes, before and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange. Anim Behav 59:127–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandeira de Melo LF, Lima Sábato MA, Vaz Magni EM, Young RJ, Coelho CM (2007) Secret lives of maned wolves (Chrysocyon brachyurus Illiger 1815): as revealed by GPS tracking collars. J Zool Lond 271:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow ACD, Smith JLD, Ahmad IU, Hossain ANM, Rahman M, Howlader A (2011) Female tiger Panthera tigris home range size in the Bangladesh Sundarbans: the value of this mangrove ecosystem for the species' conservation. Oryx 45:125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekoff M, Daniels TJ, Gittleman JL (1984) Life history patterns and the comparative social ecology of carnivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:191–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertram BCR (1975) The social system of lions. Sci Am 232:54–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A et al (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1393–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro TM (1994) Cheetahs of the Serengeti plains: group living in an asocial species. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Caro TM, Collins DA (1986) Male cheetahs of the Serengeti. Natl Geogr Res 2:75–86Google Scholar
  11. Caro TM, Stoner CJ (2003) The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biol Conserv 110:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr GM, Macdonald DW (1986) The sociality of solitary foragers: a model based on resource dispersion. Anim Behav 34:1540–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavallini P (1996) Variation in the social system of the red fox. Ethol Ecol Evol 8:323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavallini P, Nel JAJ (1990) Ranging behaviour of the Cape grey mongoose Galerella pulverulenta in a coastal area. J Zool 222:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock TH, Janson CH (2012) Primate socioecology at the crossroads: past, present, and future. Evol Anthropol 21:136–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1992) Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol 67:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Creel S, Creel NM (1995) Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 50:1325–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creel S, Creel NM (1996) Limitation of African wild dogs by competition with larger carnivores. Conserv Biol 10:526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crook JH (1970) Social organization and the environment: aspects of contemporary social ethology. Anim Behav 18:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crook JH, Gartlan JS (1966) Evolution of primate societies. Nature 210:1200–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. da Silva J, Woodroffe R, Macdonald DW (1993) Habitat, food availability and group territoriality in the European badger, Meles meles. Oecologia 95:558–564Google Scholar
  23. da Silva J, Macdonald DW, Evans PGH (1994) Net costs of group living in a solitary forager, the Eurasian badger (Meles meles). Behav Ecol 5:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalerum F (2005) Sociality in a solitary carnivore, the wolverine. Dissertation, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Dalerum F, Creel S, Hall SB (2006) Behavioral and endocrine correlates of reproductive failure in social aggregations of captive wolverines (Gulo gulo). J Zool 269:527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dammhahn M, Kappeler PM (2009) Females go where the food is: does the socio-ecological model explain variation in social organisation of solitary foragers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:939–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davies NB, Hartley IR, Hatchwell BJ, Desrochers A, Skeer J, Nebel D (1995) The polygynandrous mating system of the alpine accentor, Prunella collaris. I. Ecological causes and reproductive conflicts. Anim Behav 49:769–788Google Scholar
  28. De Solla SR, Bonduriansky R, Brooks RJ (1999) Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. J Anim Ecol 68:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Development Core Team R (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. Doncaster CP (1990) Non-parametric estimates of interaction from radio-tracking data. J Theor Biol 143:431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Durant SM (1998) Competition refuges and coexistence: an example from Serengeti carnivores. J Anim Ecol 67:370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feist JD, McCullough DR (1975) Reproduction in feral horses. J Reprod Fertil 23 (Suppl.):13–18Google Scholar
  34. Gannon WL, Sikes RS (2007) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal 88:809–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Geffen E, Hefner R, Macdonald DW, Ucko M (1992) Habitat selection and home range in the Blanford's fox, Vulpes cana: compatibility with the resource dispersion hypothesis. Oecologia 91:75–81Google Scholar
  36. Gehrt SD, Fritzell EK (1998) Resource distribution, female home range dispersion and male spatial interactions: group structure in a solitary carnivore. Anim Behav 55:1211–1227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Getz WM, Wilmers CC (2004) A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 27:489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gittleman JL (1984) The behavioural ecology of carnivores. PhD thesis, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  39. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH (1982) Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gompper ME, Gittleman JL (1991) Home range scaling: intraspecific and comparative trends. Oecologia 87:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hawkins CE (1998) The behaviour and ecology of the fossa, Cryptoprocta ferox, (Carnivora: Viverridae) in a dry deciduous forest in western Madagascar. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  42. Hawkins CE, Racey PA (2005) Low population density of a tropical forest carnivore, Cryptoprocta ferox: implications for protected area management. Oryx 39:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hawkins CE, Racey PA (2008) Food habits of an endangered carnivore, Cryptoprocta ferox, in the dry deciduous forests of western Madagascar. J Mammal 89:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hawkins CE, Racey PA (2009) A novel mating system in a solitary carnivore: the fossa. J Zool 277:196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hawkins CE, Dallas JF, Fowler PA, Woodroffe R, Racey PA (2002) Transient masculinization in the fossa, Cryptoprocta ferox (Carnivora, Viverridae). Biol Reprod 66:610–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hays WST, Conant S (2003) Male social activity in the small Indian mongoose Herpestes javanicus. Acta Theriol 48:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Herrera EA, Macdonald DW (1989) Resource utilization and territoriality in group-living capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). J Anim Ecol 58:667–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (2000) Animal movement extension to Arcview. Ver. 2.0. Alaska Science Center - Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Jarman PJ (1974) The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jenness J (2004) Weighted mean of points (weightmean.avx). Extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.2c. Jenness EnterprisesGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson DDP, Macdonald DW, Newman C, Morecroft MD (2001) Group size versus territory size in group-living badgers: a large-sample field test of the resource dispersion hypothesis. Oikos 95:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johnson DDP, Kays R, Blackwell PG, Macdonald DW (2002) Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living? Trends Ecol Evol 17:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kappeler PM, van Schaik CP (2002) Evolution of primate social systems. Int J Primatol 23:707–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kleiman DG, Eisenberg JF (1973) Comparisons of canid and felid social systems from an evolutionary perspective. Anim Behav 21:637–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Klingel H (1975) Social organization and reproduction in equids. J Reprod Fertil 23(Suppl.):7–11Google Scholar
  56. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Kruuk H (1972) The spotted hyena: a study of predation and social behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindström E (1986) Territory inheritance and the evolution of group-living in carnivores. Anim Behav 34:1825–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lührs ML, Dammhahn M (2010) An unusual case of cooperative hunting in a solitary carnivore. J Ethol 28:379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lührs ML, Dammhahn M, Kappeler PM (2013) Strength in numbers: males in a carnivore grow bigger when they associate and hunt cooperatively. Behav Ecol 24:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Macdonald DW (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McNab BK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mundry R, Nunn CL (2009) Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: turning noise into signal pollution. Am Nat 173:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pusey AE, Packer C (1987) Dispersal and philopatry. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 250–266Google Scholar
  66. Rasoloarison RM, Rasolonandrasana BPN, Ganzhorn JU, Goodman SM (1995) Predation on vertebrates in the Kirindy Forest, western Madagascar. Ecotropica 1:59–65Google Scholar
  67. Rathbun GB, Cowley TE (2008) Behavioural ecology of the black mongoose (Galerella nigrata) in Namibia. Mammal Biol 73:444–450Google Scholar
  68. Rood JP, Waser PW (1978) The slender mongoose (Herpestes sanguineus) in the Serengeti. Carnivore 1:54–58Google Scholar
  69. Sandell M (1989) The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 164–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schaller GB (1972) The Serengeti lion: a study of predator–prey relations. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  71. Schülke O (2003) To breed or not to breed—food competition and other factors involved in female breeding decisions in the pair-living nocturnal fork-marked lemur (Phaner furcifer). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611Google Scholar
  73. Soisalo MK, Cavalcanti SMC (2006) Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biol Conserv 129:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sorg JP, Rohner U (1996) Climate and tree phenology of the dry deciduous forest of the Kirindy Forest. In: Ganzhorn JU, Sorg JP (eds) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Report 46:57–80Google Scholar
  75. Swihart RK, Slade NA (1985) Testing for independence of observations in animal movements. Ecology 66:1176–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Terborgh J, Janson CH (1986) The socioecology of primate groups. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Schaik CP, Kappeler PM (1996) The social systems of gregarious lemurs: lack of convergence with anthropoids due to evolutionary disequilibrium? Ethology 102:915–941Google Scholar
  78. Wagner AP, Frank LG, Creel S (2008) Spatial grouping in behaviourally solitary striped hyaenas, Hyaena hyaena. Anim Behav 75:1131–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Waser PM, Keane B, Creel SR, Elliott LF, Minchella DJ (1994) Possible male coalitions in a solitary mongoose. Anim Behav 47:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  81. Woodroffe R, Macdonald DW (1993) Badger sociality—models of spatial grouping. Symp Zool Soc Lond 65:145–169Google Scholar
  82. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociobiology/Anthropology, Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach-Institute of Zoology and AnthropologyGeorg-August-UniversityGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate ResearchGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations