Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 6, pp 879–889 | Cite as

Polyandrous mating in treetops: how male competition and female choice interact to determine an unusual carnivore mating system

  • Mia-Lana Lührs
  • Peter M. Kappeler
Original Paper


The diversity of mammalian mating systems is primarily shaped by sex-specific reproductive strategies. In the present study, we explored determinants and consequences of a unique mating system exhibited by fossas (Cryptoprocta ferox), the largest Malagasy carnivore, where females mate polyandrously on traditional mating trees, and males exhibit intrasexual size dimorphism. Males face both contest and scramble competition, and inter-sexual size dimorphism can be pronounced, but its magnitude depends on the male morph. Using a continuous behavioral observation of six estrous females over 4 years, we investigated correlates of male contest competition and female choice based on 316 copulations. Furthermore, we assessed correlates of male scramble competition based on testes size and movement data obtained from GPS tracking. We found that females dominated males regardless of their smaller size and that females actively solicited copulations. Heavy males had highest mating success during the female’s peak mating activity, but were discriminated against afterwards. Female choice and male–male competition thus converged to generate a mating advantage for heavier males. Our results suggest that females actively seek polyandrous matings, presumably for indirect genetic benefits. Since body mass is the major determinant of male mating success and is at the same time dependent on the degree of sociality and associated hunting mode of the respective male morph, a male’s feeding ecology is likely to influence its reproductive tactic. A combination of benefits from female polyandry and the consequences of different subsistence strategies may thus ultimately explain this unusual mating system.


Polyandry Female choice Male–male competition Mating system Female dominance Cryptoprocta ferox 



We are grateful to Rémy Ampataka, Tianasoa Andrianjanahary, Nielsen Rabarijaona, and Jean-Pierre Tolojanahary for field assistance. We thank Cornelia Kraus for statistical advice and Melanie Dammhahn for fruitful discussions and helpful comments on the manuscript. We further thank Elise Huchard for veterinary assistance and helpful discussions, Franz Kümmeth from e-obs GmbH for technical support, Léonard Razafimanantsoa, Rodin Rasoloarison, and Heike Klensang for administrative support, and two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We thank Daniel Rakotondravony from the Département de Biologie Animale de l’Université d’Antananarivo, the Commission Tripartite CAFF, and CNFEREF Morondava for their authorization and support of this study. Funding was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG KA 1082/17-1), the Fossa Fund of Zoo Duisburg AG, and the German Primate Center GmbH (DPZ). All research protocols were approved by the appropriate Animal Use and Care Committees of Germany (Bundesministerium für Naturschutz, BfN) and Madagascar (Ministère de l’Environnement et des Eaux et Forêts, MINEEF).

Ethical standards

This study is in compliance with animal care regulations and applicable national laws of Germany and Madagascar.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary material

265_2014_1701_Fig6_ESM.jpg (76 kb)
ESM Fig. 1

(JPEG 76 kb)

265_2014_1701_MOESM1_ESM.tif (10.7 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 10,919 kb)
265_2014_1701_Fig7_ESM.jpg (63 kb)
ESM Fig. 2

(JPEG 63 kb)

265_2014_1701_MOESM2_ESM.tif (9.9 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 10,126 kb)
265_2014_1701_Fig8_ESM.jpg (67 kb)
ESM Fig. 3

(JPEG 67 kb)

265_2014_1701_MOESM3_ESM.tif (9.5 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 9,699 kb)
265_2014_1701_Fig9_ESM.jpg (126 kb)
ESM Fig. 4

(JPEG 125 kb)

265_2014_1701_MOESM4_ESM.tif (21.5 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 22,007 kb)
265_2014_1701_MOESM5_ESM.doc (58 kb)
Table S1 Overview of spatial data obtained for nine males (M1-M9) (DOC 58 kb)
265_2014_1701_MOESM6_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Table S2 Numbers of successful terminations of mating depending on the body mass class of the mating male and the aggressor (DOC 29 kb)
265_2014_1701_MOESM7_ESM.doc (64 kb)
Table S3 Model outputs (a) determinants of copulation length (LMM)* (DOC 64 kb)


  1. Albignac R (1969) Naissance et élevage en captivité de jeunes Cryptoprocta ferox, Viverridae malgaches. Mammalia 33:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albignac R (1970) Notes éthologiques sur quelques carnivores malgaches: le Cryptoprocta ferox (Bennett). Terre Vie-Rev Ecol A 24:395–402Google Scholar
  3. Albignac R (1973) Mammifères carnivores. O.R.S.T.O.M, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc Lond B 261:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (1999) Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature 397:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellemain E, Swenson JE, Taberlet P (2006a) Mating strategies in relation to sexually selected infanticide in a non-social carnivore: the brown bear. Ethology 112:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellemain E, Zedrosser A, Manel S, Waits LP, Taberlet P, Swenson JE (2006b) The dilemma of female mate selection in the brown bear, a species with sexually selected infanticide. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitch FB (1988) Coalitions, cooperation and reproductive tactics among adult male baboons. Anim Behav 36:1198–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR (2000) Promiscuity: an evolutionary history of sperm competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkhead T, Møller A (1993) Female control of paternity. Trends Ecol Evol 8:100–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Ecol 8:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bygott JD, Bertram BCR, Hanby JP (1979) Male lions in large coalitions gain reproductive advantages. Nature 282:839–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewar RE, Richard AF (2007) Evolution in the hypervariable environment of Madagascar. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13723–13727PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dickie L (2005) The behaviour and reproductive physiology of the fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox) in captivity. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Duffy KG, Wrangham RW, Silk JB (2007) Male chimpanzees exchange political support for mating opportunities. Curr Biol 17:R586–R587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. East ML, Hofer H (2001) Male spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) queue for status in social groups dominated by females. Behav Ecol 12:558–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. East ML, Burke T, Wilhelm K, Greig C, Hofer H (2003) Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age, social status and tenure. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebensperger LA (1998) Strategies and counterstrategies to infanticide in mammals. Biol Rev 73:321–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004) Sex in the dark: determinants and consequences of mixed male mating tactics in Microcebus murinus, a small solitary nocturnal primate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher DO, Cockburn A (2006) The large-male advantage in brown antechinuses: female choice, male dominance, and delayed male death. Behav Ecol 17:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Hawkins CE, Racey PA (2009) A novel mating system in a solitary carnivore: the fossa. J Zool 277:196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (2000) Animal movement extension to Arcview. ver. 2.0. Alaska Science Centere-Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoogland JL (1998) Why do female Gunnison’s prairie dogs copulate with more than one male? Anim Behav 55:351–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hosken DJ, Stockley P (2003) Benefits of polyandry: a life history perspective. Evol Biol 33:173–194Google Scholar
  36. Hrdy SB (1979) Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol Sociobiol 1:13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huchard E, Canale CI, Le Gros C, Perret M, Henry PY, Kappeler PM (2012) Convenience polyandry or convenience polygyny? Costly sex under female control in a promiscuous primate. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:1371–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunter FM, Petrie M, Otronen M, Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1993) Why do females copulate repeatedly with one male? Trends Ecol Evol 8:21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Iossa G, Soulsbury CD, Baker PJ, Harris S (2008) Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in terrestrial mammalian carnivores. Funct Ecol 22:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radiotracking. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Knott CD, Emery Thompson M, Stumpf RM, McIntyre MH (2010) Female reproductive strategies in orangutans, evidence for female choice and counterstrategies to infanticide in a species with frequent sexual coercion. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kvarnemo C, Simmons LW (2013) Polyandry as a mediator of sexual selection before and after mating. Philos T Roy Soc B 368:20120042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lührs ML, Kappeler PM (2013) Simultaneous GPS tracking reveals male associations in a solitary carnivore. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1731–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mundry R, Nunn CL (2009) Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: turning noise into signal pollution. Am Nat 173:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newcomer SD, Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1999) Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:10236–10241PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noë R, Sluijter AA (1990) Reproductive tactics of male savanna baboons. Behaviour 113:117–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Packer C, Herbst L, Pusey AE, Bygott JD, Cairns SJ, Hanby JP, Borgerhoff-Mulder M (1988) Reproductive success of lions. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 363–383Google Scholar
  51. Parker GA (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peig J, Green AJ (2009) New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118:1883–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW, Wilson K (2003) Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal: the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  55. Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rood JP (1990) Group size, survival, reproduction, and routes to breeding in dwarf mongooses. Anim Behav 39:566–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rowe L (1992) Convenience polyandry in a water strider: foraging conflicts and female control of copulation frequency and guarding duration. Anim Behav 44:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rowe L (1994) The costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav 48:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa JJ (1994) Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol Evol 9:289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 36:125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slatyer RA, Mautz BS, Backwell PRY, Jennions MD (2012a) Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis. Biol Rev 87:1–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slatyer RA, Jennions MD, Backwell PRY (2012b) Polyandry occurs because females initially trade sex for protection. Anim Behav 83:1203–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith RL (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  64. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stumpf R, Emery Thompson M, Knott C (2008) A comparison of female mating strategies in Pan troglodytes and Pongo spp. Int J Primatol 29:865–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swenson JE, Sandegren F, Brunberg S, Segerström P (2001) Factors associated with loss of brown bear cubs in Sweden. Ursus 12:69–80Google Scholar
  67. Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (2010) Alternative reproductive tactics and life history phenotypes. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Berlin, pp 537–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Watts DP (1998) Coalitionary mate guarding by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiley RH, Poston J (1996) Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50:1371–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yasui Y (1998) The ‘genetic benefits’ of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol Evol 13:246–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defenses against genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations