Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 287–295 | Cite as

Mating group composition influences somatic costs and activity in rutting dominant male reindeer (Rangifer tarandus)

  • Erica M. Tennenhouse
  • Robert B. Weladji
  • Øystein Holand
  • Knut H. Røed
  • Mauri Nieminen
Original Paper

Abstract

In polygynous species, males devote considerable effort to reproduction during the rut. Both the number of females in the mating group and the ratio of sexually mature males to sexually mature females [adult sex ratio (ASR)] are expected to affect the amount of effort a male devotes to reproductive activities. We predicted the reproductive effort of dominant male reindeer, measured as relative mass loss, proportions of active reproductive behaviors, and frequencies of agonistic behaviors would (1) increase with an increasing number of females in the mating group and eventually level off, and (2) exhibit a dome shape with respect to ASR in the mating group. We tested these predictions using 12 years of data collected from semi-domesticated reindeer in northern Finland. We found a positive relationship between relative mass loss and the mean number of females in the mating group for mature, but not young males. The relationship between the proportion of active reproductive behaviors performed by mature males and the mean number of females in the group was quadratic while agonistic behaviors of mature males increased with the increasing female group size. We also found that active reproductive behaviors decreased with a rising mating group ASR for mature males; whereas, young males performed more agonistic behaviors as group ASR increased. Our results point to age-specific patterns of mass loss and activity during the mating season. They also indicate that both the number of females and ASR in the mating group are important factors in determining the level of reproductive effort of dominant male reindeer.

Keywords

Adult sex ratio Agonistic behaviors Male reproductive effort Mass loss Operational sex ratio Rangifer tarandus Rut 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (scholarship to E.M.T and research grant to R.B.W) and the Northern Scientific Training Program. Thanks also to J. Grant, M. Festa-Bianchet, D. Forsyth, and an anonymous referee for comments that improved this manuscript. We thank all students, assistants, and volunteers who have contributed to our research over the past 14 years. We are grateful to the Kutuharju Field Reindeer Station (Kaamanen, Finland), to Mikka Tervonen, and Heilki Tormanen for the assistance and logistic support.

References

  1. Abell AJ (2000) Costs of reproduction in male lizards, Sceloporus virgatus. Oikos 88:630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Apollonio M, Di Vittorio I (2004) Feeding and reproductive behaviour in fallow bucks (Dama dama). Naturwissenschaften 91:579–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mari F (1989) Correlates of copulatory success in a fallow deer lek. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartos L, Fricova B, Bartosova-Vichova J, Panama J, Sustr P, Smidova E (2007) Estimation of the probability of fighting in fallow deer (Dama dama) during the rut. Aggress Behav 33:7–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169Google Scholar
  7. Buschhaus NL, Lagory KE, Taylor DH (1990) Behaviour in an introduced population of fallow deer during the rut. Am Midl Nat 124:318–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byers JA (1997) American pronghorn: social adaptations & the ghosts of predators past. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 236:339–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, McComb KE, Deutsch JC (1996) Multiple factors affect the distribution of females in lek-breeding ungulates: a rejoinder. Behav Ecol 7:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Flower TP (2008) Group size and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in Kalahari meerkats. Anim Behav 76:689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA, Grant JWA (2003) Resource defense in a group-foraging context. Behav Ecol 14:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Epsmark Y (1964) Rutting behaviour in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Anim Behav 12:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forsyth DM, Duncan RP, Tustin KG, Gaillard JM (2005) A substantial energetic cost to male reproduction in a sexually dimorphic ungulate. Ecology 86:2154–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galimberti F, Sanvito S, Braschi C, Boitani L (2007) The cost of success: reproductive effort in male southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant JWA, Gaboury CL, Levitt HL (2000) Competitor-to-resource ratio, a general formulation of operational sex ratio, as a predictor of competetive aggression in Japanese medaka (Pisces: Oryziidae). Behav Ecol 11:670–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogg JT, Forbes SH (1997) Mating in bighorn sheep: frequent male reproduction via a high-risk “unconventional” tactic. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holand Ø, Weladji RB, Røed KH, Gjøstein H, Kumpula J, Gaillard JM, Smith ME, Nieminen M (2006) Male age structure influences females’ mass change during rut in a polygynous ungulate: the reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber S, Millesi E, Dittami JP (2002) Paternal effort and its relation to mating success in the European ground squirrel. Anim Behav 63:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isvaran K (2005) Variation in male mating behaviour within ungulate populations: patterns and processes. Curr Sci 89:1192–1199Google Scholar
  23. Jennings DJ, Carlin CM, Hayden TJ, Gammell MP (2010) Investment in fighting in relation to body condition, age and dominance rank in the male fallow deer, Dama dama. Anim Behav 79:1293–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kojola I (1991) Influence of age on the reproductive effort of male reindeer. J Mammal 72:208–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komers PE, Pelabon C, Stenstrom D (1997) Age at first reproduction in male fallow deer: age-specific versus dominance-specific behaviors. Behav Ecol 8:456–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Roux A, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2008) The audience effect in a facultatively social mammal, the yellow mongoose, Cynictis penicillata. Anim Behav 75:943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2009) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  28. Machlis L, Dodd PWD, Fentress JC (1985) The pooling fallacy—problems arising when individuals contribute more than one observation to the data set. Z Tierpsychol 68:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mainguy J, Côté SD (2008) Age- and state-dependent reproductive effort in male mountain goats, Oreamnos americanus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:935–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin P, Bateson P (2007) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Mattiangeli V, Mattiello S, Verga M (1999) The fighting technique of male fallow deer (Dama dama): an analysis of agonistic interactions during the rut. J Zool 249:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michener GR, McLean IG (1996) Reproductive behaviour and operational sex ratio in Richardson’s ground squirrels. Anim Behav 52:743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mysterud A, Holand O, Roed KH, Gjostein H, Kumpula J, Nieminen M (2003) Effects of age, density and sex ratio on reproductive effort in male reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). J Zool 261:341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mysterud A, Langvatn R, Stenseth NC (2004) Patterns of reproductive effort in male ungulates. J Zool 264:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mysterud A, Solberg EJ, Yoccoz NG (2005) Ageing and reproductive effort in male moose under variable levels of intrasexual competition. J Anim Ecol 74:742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mysterud A, Bonenfant C, Loe LE, Langvatn R, Yoccoz NG, Stenseth NC (2008) Age-specific feeding cessation in male red deer during the rut. J Zool 275:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mysterud A, Roed KH, Holand O, Yoccoz NG, Nieminen M (2009) Age-related gestation length adjustment in a large iteroparous mammal at northern latitude. J Anim Ecol 78:1002–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pelletier F, Hogg JT, Festa-Bianchet M (2006) Male mating effort in a polygynous ungulate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pelletier F, Mainguy J, Côté SD (2009) Rut-induced hypophagia in male bighorn sheep and mountain goats: foraging under time budget constraints. Ethology 115:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pepin D, Morellet N, Goulard M (2009) Seasonal and daily walking activity patterns of free-ranging adult red deer (Cervus elaphus) at the individual level. Eur J Wildl Res 55:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roed KH, Holand O, Smith ME, Gjostein H, Kumpula J, Nieminen M (2002) Reproductive success in reindeer males in a herd with varying sex ratio. Mol Ecol 11:1239–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. SAS (2008) The SAS system for Windows, release 9.2. In. SAS Institute Inc. Carey, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Skogland T (1989) Comparative social organization of wild reindeer in relation to food, mates and predator avoidance. Adv Ethol 29:1–77Google Scholar
  44. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  46. Willisch CS, Ingold P (2007) Feeding or resting? The strategy of rutting male Alpine chamois. Ethology 113:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica M. Tennenhouse
    • 1
  • Robert B. Weladji
    • 1
  • Øystein Holand
    • 2
  • Knut H. Røed
    • 3
  • Mauri Nieminen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of BiologyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Animal and Aquacultural SciencesNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  3. 3.Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic MedicineNorwegian School of Veterinary ScienceOsloNorway
  4. 4.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Reindeer Research StationKaamanenFinland

Personalised recommendations