Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 129–140 | Cite as

Sex difference in the communicatory significance of localized defecation sites in Arabian gazelles (Gazella arabica)

  • Torsten WronskiEmail author
  • Ann Apio
  • Martin Plath
  • Madlen Ziege
Article

Abstract

Mammalian scent marking in localized defecation sites (latrines) has often been interpreted in the context of (male) territory defense. However, latrines could have different functions in males and females, especially where territorial males monopolize groups of females with stable social alliances and pronounced home range overlap. We investigated the communicatory significance of latrines in wild Arabian gazelles (Gazella arabica) and assessed the spatial distribution of latrines within home ranges. Latrine density and utilization was highest in the center of female group home ranges, and less frequent in peripheral home range sections, pointing towards communication within groups rather than towards territoriality. When considering male home ranges, latrine densities and utilization were higher in non-overlap zones, contradicting a territorial function. This pattern appears to be caused by more females than territorial males per given area establishing latrines. A subsequent survey of latrine utilization, based on camera trapping, suggests that males use latrines for territory defense: males visited latrines in overlap zones disproportionally more often than females, and successions of two males prevailed. Our study thus highlights that male territorial marking can be masked when males and females use the same marking system for different purposes.

Keywords

Communication networks Scent marking Latrine Over-marking Camera trapping 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H.H. Prince Bandar bin Saud bin Mohammed al Saud (President, SWA, Saudi Arabia) for his permission and support to conduct scientific research on wildlife in the Kingdom. Special thanks are rendered to Richard Kock, Tim Wacher, and Ernest Robinson who recognized the importance of latrine use for the understanding of the social organization of this vulnerable species and as a tool for its conservation.

Ethical standards

Our experiments comply with the current laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the ethical standards of the Zoological Society of London.

Supplementary material

10164_2012_357_MOESM1_ESM.doc (830 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 829 kb)

References

  1. Apio A, Plath M, Tiedemann R, Wronski T (2007) Age-dependent mating tactics in male bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Behaviour 144:585–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attum O (2007) Can landscape use be among the factors that potentially make some ungulate species more difficult to conserve? J Arid Environ 69:410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attum O, Eason P, Wakefield S (2006) Conservation implications of midden selection and use in an endangered gazelle (Gazella gazella). J Zool (Lond) 268:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baharav D (1981) Food habits of the mountain gazelle in semi-arid habitats of eastern Lower Galilee, Israel. J Arid Environ 4:63–69Google Scholar
  5. Baharav D (1983) Reproductive strategies in female mountain and dorcas gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella and Gazella dorcas). J Zool (Lond) 200:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brashares JS, Arcese P (1999a) Scent marking in a territorial African antelope: the maintenance of borders between male oribi. Anim Behav 57:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brashares JS, Arcese P (1999b) Scent marking in a territorial African antelope: II. The economics of marking with feces. Anim Behav 57:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull CM, Griffin CL, Lanham EJ, Johnston GR (2000) Recognition of pheromones from group members in a gregarious lizard, Egernia stokesii. J Herptol 34:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Child G, Grainger J (1990) A system plan for protected areas for wildlife conservation and sustainable rural development in Saudi Arabia—appendix II. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, RiyadhGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse LJ, Carlson AA, Ziegler TE, Snowdon CT (1995) Communication of ovulatory state to mates by female pygmy marmosets, Cebuella pygmaea. Anim Behav 49:615–621Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham PL, Wronski T (2009) Farasan Islands Survey—June 2009. Unpublished Report. King Khalid Wildlife Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham PL, Wronski T (2011a) Twenty years of monitoring of the vulnerable Farasan gazelle Gazella gazella farasani on the Farasan Islands, Saudi Arabia: an overview. Oryx 45:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham PL, Wronski T (2011b) Population structure of Farasan gazelle. Mammalia 75:157–161Google Scholar
  14. Darden SK, Seffensen LK, Dabelstein T (2008) Information transfer among widely spaced individuals: latrines as a basis for communication networks in the swift fox. Anim Behav 75:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon KR, Chapman JA (1980) Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas. Ecology 61:1040–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunbar RIM, Dunbar E (1980) The pair bond in klipspringer. Anim Behav 28:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunham KM (1998) Spatial organization of mountain gazelles Gazella gazella reintroduced to central Arabia. J Zool (Lond) 245:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunham K (1999) The social organisation of mountain gazelles Gazella gazella in a population reintroduced to central Arabia. J Arid Environ 43:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ezenwa V (2000) The buck drops here. Swara 23:19Google Scholar
  20. Ferkin MH (1999a) Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus, Arvicolidae) over-mark and adjacent-mark the scent marks of same-sex conspecifics. Ethology 105:825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferkin MH (1999b) Attractiveness of opposite-sex odor and responses to it vary with age and sex in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Chem Ecol 25:757–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flamand JRB, Thouless CR, Tatwany H, Asmodé JF (1988) Status of the gazelles of the Farasan Islands, Saudi Arabia. Mammalia 52:608–610Google Scholar
  23. Geffen H, Perevolotzky A, Geffen E, Yom-Tov Y (1999) Use of space and social organisation of female mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella) in Ramat Ha Nadiv, Israel. J Zool (Lond) 246:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorman LM, Mills GL (1984) Scent marking strategies in hyaenas (Mammalia). J Zool (Lond) 202:535–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gosling LM (1981) Demarcation in a gerenuk territory: an economic approach. Z Tierpsychol 56:305–322Google Scholar
  26. Gosling LM (1982) A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories. Z Tierpshychol 60:89–118Google Scholar
  27. Gosling LM (1985) The even-toed ungulates: order Artiodactyla. Sources, behavioural context, and function of chemical signals. In: Brown RE, MacDonald DW (eds) Social odours in mammals, 2nd edn. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 550–618Google Scholar
  28. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001a) Scent marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Stud Behav 30:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001b) Testing ideas about the function of scent marks in territories from spatial patterns. Anim Behav 62:F7–F10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gosling LM, Wright KHM (1994) Scent marking and resource defense by male coypus (Myocastor coypus). J Zool (Lond) 234:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gosling LM, Atkinson NW, Dunn S, Collins SA (1996) The response of subordinate male mice to scent marks varies in relation to their own competitive ability. Anim Behav 52:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grau GA, Walther FR (1976) Mountain gazelle agonistic behaviour. Anim Behav 24:626–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habibi K (1989) Biology of the Farasan gazelle. Unpublished report, National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, RiyadhGoogle Scholar
  34. Habibi K, Thouless C (1997) Ecology of sand and mountain gazelles in Saudi Arabia. In: Habibi K, Abuzinada AH, Nader IA (eds) The gazelles of Arabia. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Riyadh, pp 88–110Google Scholar
  35. Hendrichs H (1975) Changes in a population of dikdik, Madoqua (Rhynchotragus) kirki (Günther 1880). Z Tierpsychol 38:55–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heymann EW (1998) Sex differences in olfactory communication in a primate, the moustached tamarin, Saguinus mystax (Callitrichinae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hooge PN (1998) Animal Movement Analysis ArcView Extensions. USGS-BRD. Alaska Biological Science Center, Glacier Bay Field StationGoogle Scholar
  38. Hurst JL (1987) Behavioural variation in wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty: a quantitative assessment of female social organization. Anim Behav 35:1846–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurst JL (1990a) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty II. Communication between females. Anim Behav 40:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hurst JL (1990b) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. I. Communication between males. Anim Behav 40:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ikeda H (1984) Raccoon dog scent marking by scats and its significance in social behaviour. J Ethol 2:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jannett Jr FJ (1986) Morphometric patterns among microtine rodents. I. Sexual selection suggested by relative scent gland development in representative voles (Microtus). In: Duvall D, Muller-Schwarze D, Silverstein RM (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates. Ecology, evolution, and comparative biology, 5th edn. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnston RE, Chiang G, Tung C (1994) The information in scent over-marks of golden-hamsters. Anim Behav 48:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnston RE, Munver R, Tung C (1995) Scent counter marks: selective memory for the top scent by golden hamsters. Anim Behav 49:1435–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jordan NR, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2007) Latrine distribution and patterns of use by wild meerkats: implications for territory and mate defense. Anim Behav 73:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kappeler PM (1998) To whom it may concern: the transmission and function of chemical signals in Lemur catta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kruuk H (1978) Spatial organisation and territorial behaviour of the European badger Meles meles. J Zool (Lond) 184:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kruuk H (1995) Wild otters predation and population. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Lerp H, Wronski T, Plath M (2012) Speciation of Arabian gazelles. In: Pawel M (ed) Speciation: natural processes, genetics and biodiversity. Nova, Hauppauge (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Leuthold W (1977) African ungulates. A comparative review of their ecology and behavioral ecology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis RJ (2005) Sex differences in scent-marking in sifaka: mating conflict or male services? Am J Phys Anthropol 128:389–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewis RJ (2006) Scent marking in sifaka: no one function explains it all. Am J Primatol 68:622–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Magin CD, Greth A (1994) Distribution, status and proposals for the conservation of mountain gazelles Gazella gazella cora in the southwest of Saudi Arabia. Biol Conserv 70:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mallon DP, Kingswood SC (2001) Antelopes. Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, Global Survey Action Plans. SSC Antelope Specialist Group. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  55. Mendelssohn H, Yom-Tov Y, Groves CP (1995) Gazella gazella. Mammal Species 490:1–7Google Scholar
  56. Mills MGL, Gorman ML (1987) The scent-marking behaviour of the spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) in the southern Kalahari. J Zool (Lond) 212:483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mills MGL, Gorman ML, Mills MEJ (1980) The scent marking behaviour of the brown hyaena Hyaena brunea. S Afr J Zool 15:240–248Google Scholar
  58. Mykytowycz R, Gambale S (1969) The distribution of dung-hills and the behavior of free-living rabbits on them. Forma Funct 2:1–12Google Scholar
  59. Mykytowycz R, Hesterman ER, Dudzinski ML, Gambale S (1976) A comparison of the effectiveness of the odour of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in enhancing territorial confidence. J Chem Ecol 2:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Norton PM (1980) The habitat and feeding ecology of the klippspringer Oreotragus oreotragus (Zimmerman 1783) in two areas of the Cape province. MSc thesis, University of PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  61. Ono Y, Doi T, Ikeda H, Baba M, Takeishi M, Izawa M, Iwamoto T (1988) Territoriality of Guenther‘s dikdik in the Omo National Park, Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 26:33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Powell RA (2000) Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology, controversies and consequences. Columbia State University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Ralls K, Smith DA (2004) Latrine use by San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and coyotes (Canis latrans). West North Am Nat 64:544–547Google Scholar
  64. Ramsay NF, Giller PS (1996) Scent-marking in ring-tailed lemurs: responses to the introduction of foreign scent in the home range. Primates 37:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raynaud J, Dobson SF (2011) Scent communication by female Columbian ground squirrels, Urocitellus columbianus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts SC, Dunbar RIM (2000) Female territoriality and the function of scent-marking in a monogamous antelope (Oreotragus oreotragus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roberts SC, Lowen C (1997) Optimal patterns of scent marks in klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus) territories. J Zool (Lond) 243:565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rosell F, Thomsen LR (2006) Sexual dimorphism in territorial scent marking by adult Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber). J Chem Ecol 36:1301–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) Accuracy of kernel estimators for animal home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Somers M, Anne O, Rasa E, Apps PJ (1990) Marking behaviour and dominance in Suni antelope (Neotragus moschatus). Z Säugetierkd 55:340–352Google Scholar
  71. Stewart PD, Macdonald DW, Newman C, Cheeseman CL (2001) Boundary feces and matched advertisement in European badger (Meles meles): a potential role in range exclusion. J Zool (Lond) 255:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thouless CR, Grainger JG, Shobrak M, Habibi K (1991) Conservation status of gazelles in Saudi Arabia. Biol Conserv 58:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walther FR (1978) Mapping the structure and the marking system of a territory of the Thomson’s gazelle. East Afr Wildl J 16:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walther FR, Mungall EC, Grau GA (1983) Gazelles and their relatives. A study in territorial behavior. Noyes, Park RidgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Wronski T (2010) Population density and home range size of re-introduced mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella) in relation to resource availability in the Ibex Reserve, Saudi Arabia. J Arid Environ 74:1427–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wronski T, Alageel K (2010a) Farasan Islands Survey—June 2010. Unpublished Report. King Khalid Wildlife Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  77. Wronski T, Alageel K (2010b) Aerial and ground survey of Farasan gazelles (Gazella gazella farasani) on Farasan islands (November 2010). Unpublished Report, King Khalid Wildlife Research Centre, RiyadhGoogle Scholar
  78. Wronski T, Apio A (2006) Home-range overlap, social vicinity and agonistic interactions denoting matrilineal organisation in bushbuck, Tragelaphus scriptus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wronski T, Plath M (2010) Characterization of the spatial distribution of latrines in reintroduced mountain gazelles: do latrines demarcate female group home ranges? J Zool (Lond) 280:92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wronski T, Sandouka MA (2008) Growth stages and ageing criteria of Arabian mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella: Antilopinae, Bovidae). Mammal Biol 75:74–82Google Scholar
  81. Wronski T, Apio A, Plath M (2006) The communicatory significance of localised defecation sites in bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wronski T, Wacher T, Hammond RL et al (2010) Two reciprocally monophyletic mtDNA lineages elucidate the taxonomic status of Mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella). Syst Biodivers 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torsten Wronski
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ann Apio
    • 4
  • Martin Plath
    • 3
  • Madlen Ziege
    • 3
  1. 1.Conservation ProgramsZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.King Khalid Wildlife Research CenterSaudi Wildlife AuthorityRiyadhKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
  4. 4.Department of Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Management, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUmutara PolytechnicNyagatareRwanda

Personalised recommendations