Abstract.
Long-distance calls produced by males are common among vertebrate species. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain features of male long-distance calls and their phylogenetic distribution in primates, but the putative functions of male long-distance calls have yet to be tested comprehensively. We used phylogenetic comparative methods to investigate hypotheses for the function of male long-distance calls. We focused on the mate defense hypothesis, which states that male long-distance calls function in intra-sexual competition for mates, but we also examined factors involving resource defense, mate attraction, and habitat. Phylogenetic reconstruction of male long-distance calls in 158 primate species indicates that the presence of male long-distance calls is the ancestral state. The carrying distance of male long-distance calls is correlated with the size of the home range, which is consistent with the role of male long-distance calls in defending mates, attracting mates, and defending resources. However, measures of male intra-sexual competition were not associated with the evolution of male long-distance calls. Evolutionary transitions were only partly correlated with factors related to mate attraction. Instead, the strongest correlates of male long-distance calls were activity period, body mass, home range, habitat and some measures of resource defense. Our results are consistent with long-distance call production as a costly signal, but detailed study within species is required to assess these costs and the functions of long-distance calls in individual cases. Electronic Supplementary Material is available if you access this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Electronic Publication
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wich, S.A., Nunn, C.L. Do male "long-distance calls" function in mate defense? A comparative study of long-distance calls in primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52, 474–484 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0541-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0541-8