Advertisement

Economic Consequences of Scent Marking in Mammalian Territoriality

  • L. M. Gosling

Abstract

The mating strategies of male mammals consist of intrasexual competition for access to females and then attempts to maximise contacts with receptive females. The form that these attempts take is strongly influenced by female movements in response to food and their tendency to form social groups. Female reproductive success (RS) is primarily (although not entirely) determined by the number of offspring that can be produced and the factors that limit this are the availability of the nutrients needed for reproduction and the chance that offspring will be killed by predators. Many aspects of female behaviour are profoundly influenced by these considerations: for example, the movements of female antelopes in relation to spatial and temporal variation in grassland quality appear to be adaptations to optimise food quality while avoiding habitats that offer cover to predators. In addition, females can reduce the chance of predation by cryptic behaviour, alone or in small groups, or by the “selfish herd” advantages of joining larger social groups. Collectively, these female behaviours appear to dictate the mating strategy that is most profitable for males to adopt (Gosling, in press). Excluding lekking, these strategies fall into two main classes: (1) males follow one or more females, waiting until they become receptive, and (2) they defend part of the food resource that females need so that they can intercept females that are attracted to the resource (Gosling, in press). This second strategy is known as “resource defence territoriality” (Emlen and Oring, 1977).

Keywords

Scent Mark Territory Size Individual Recognition Agonistic Encounter Glandular Secretion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Albon, S. D., 1979, The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement, Behaviour, 69: 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davies, N. B., 1978, Ecological questions about territorial behaviour, in; “Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach,” J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds., Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, N. B., and Houston, A., 1981, Owners and satellites: The economics of territory defence in the pied wagtail, Motacilla alba, J. Anim. Ecol., 50:157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emlen, S. T., and Oring, L. W., 1977, Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems, Science, 197: 215.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Estes, R. D., 1969, Territorial behaviour of the wildebeest, (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell, 1823), Z. Tierpsychol., 26:284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Estes, R. D., 1974, Social organization of the African Bovidae, in: “The Behaviour of Ungulates and Its Relation to Management,” F. R. Walther, and V. Geist, eds., IUCN, Morges.Google Scholar
  7. Gorman, M. L., 1976, A mechanism for individual recognition by odour in Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae), Anim. Behav., 24:141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gorman, M. L., 1984, Scent marking and territoriality, Acta Zool., Fennica, 171: 49.Google Scholar
  9. Gosling, L. M., 1974, The social behaviour of Coke’s hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei), in: “The Behaviour of Ungulates and Its Relation to Management,” F. R. Walther, and V. Geist, eds., IUCN, Morges.Google Scholar
  10. Gosling, L. M., 1975, The ecological significance of male bahaviour in Coke’s hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei, Gunther, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Nairobi.Google Scholar
  11. Gosling, L. M. 1982, A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories, Z. Tierpsychol., 60:89.Google Scholar
  12. Gosling, L. M., 1985, The even-toed ungulates: Order Artiodactyla. Sources, behavioural context, and function of chemical signals, in: “Social Odours In Mammals,” R. E. Brown, and D. W. Macdonald, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Gosling, L. M., (in press), The evolution of mating strategies in male antelopes, in: “Ecology of Social Evolution,” D. I. Rubenstein, and R. W. Wrangham, eds., Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton, W. D., 1971, Geometry for the selfish herd, J. Theoret. Biol., 31:295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huxley, J. S., 1934, A natural experiment on the territorial instinct, Brit. Birds, 27:270.Google Scholar
  16. Hyatt, G. W., and Salmon, M., 1978, Combat in Fiddler crabs Uca pugilator: A quantitative analysis, Behaviour, 65: 182.Google Scholar
  17. Jarman, M. V., 1979, Impala social behaviour. Territory, hierarchy, mating, and the use of space, Adv. Ethol., 21:1.Google Scholar
  18. Jarman, P. J., 1974, The social organisation of antelopes in relation to their ecology, Behaviour, 48: 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krebs, J. R., 1982, Territorial defence in the Great tit (Parus major): Do residents always win?, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 11:185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruuk, H., Gorman, M., and Leitch, A., 1984, Scent-marking with the subcaudal gland by the European badger, Meles meles L., Anim. Behav., 32:899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maynard Smith, J., 1976, Evolution and the theory of games,Am. Sei., 64:41.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard Smith, J., and Parker, G. A., 1976, The logic of asymmetric contests, Anim. Behav., 24:159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Metzgar, L. A., 1967, An experimental comparison of screech owl predation on resident and transient white-footed mice, J. Mammal., 48:387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mloszewski, M. J., 1983, “The Behaviour and Ecology of the African Buffalo,” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Owen-Smith, N., 1977, On territoriality in ungulates, and an evolutionary model, Q. Rev. Biol., 52:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Owen-Smith, N., 1984, Spatial and temporal components of the mating systems of kudu bulls and red deer stags, Anim. Behav., 32:321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker, G. A., 1974, Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour, J. Theor. Biol., 47:223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petrie, M., 1984, Territory size in the moorhen (Gallinula chloropus): An outcome of RHP asymmetry between neighbours, Anim. Behav., 32:861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rieger, I., 1979, Scent rubbing in carnivores, Carnivore, 2: 17.Google Scholar
  30. Reichert, S. E., 1978, Games spiders play: Behavioural variability in territorial disputes, Behav. Ecol Sociobiol., 3:135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaller, G. B., 1972, “The Serengeti Lion,” Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Stanley-Price, M. R., 1974, The feeding ecology of Coke’s hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei Gunther, in Kenya, D. Phil, thesis, Univ. Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Walther, F. R., 1978a, Mapping the structure and the marking system of a territory of the Thomson’s gazelle, E. Afr. Wildl. J., 59:243.Google Scholar
  34. Walther, F. R., 1978b, Behavioural observations on oryx antelope (Oryx beisa) invading Serengeti National Park, J. Mammal., 59:243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zahavi, A., 1975, Mate selection - a selection for a handicap, J. Theor. Biol., 53:205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zahavi, A., 1977, Reliability in communcation systems and the evolution of altruism, in: “Evolutionary Ecology,” B. Stonehouse, and C. Perrins, eds., Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Gosling
    • 1
  1. 1.Coypu Research Laboratory MAFFNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations