Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2003 Jun 22;270(1521):1247–1254. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2363

Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age, social status and tenure.

Marion L East 1, Terry Burke 1, Kerstin Wilhelm 1, Carolyn Greig 1, Heribert Hofer 1
PMCID: PMC1691369  PMID: 12816637

Abstract

We investigated the reproductive outcomes of male and female mating tactics in the spotted hyena, Crocuta crocuta, a female-dominated social carnivore with high maternal investment, an absence of paternal care and female control over copulation. Paternity was determined using microsatellite profiling of 236 offspring in 171 litters from three clans. We found little evidence that male tactics that sought to coerce or monopolize females were successful. Polyandry and sperm competition appeared to counter effectively pre-copulatory male tactics, such as harassment, monopolization and other tactics, such as infanticide, that were against the evolutionary interests of females, and may have contributed to the stability of the male dominance hierarchy, which operated as a social queue. At least 39% of 54 females mated multiply, and 35% of 75 twin litters were fathered by two sires. Polyandry may also serve to ensure fertilization, compensate for an initial poor-quality mate or ensure fertilization by genetically compatible mates. Female mate choice matched observed patterns of affiliative male-female behaviour, indicating that affiliative behaviour is a successful male mating tactic, and was consistent with the idea that male tenure may serve as an index of male quality, although male fertility may decline with extreme old age.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (309.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Clutton-Brock T. H., Vincent A. C. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature. 1991 May 2;351(6321):58–60. doi: 10.1038/351058a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Connor R. C., Heithaus M. R., Barre L. M. Complex social structure, alliance stability and mating access in a bottlenose dolphin 'super-alliance'. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 7;268(1464):263–267. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Goymann W., East M. L., Hofer H. Androgens and the role of female "hyperaggressiveness" in spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). Horm Behav. 2001 Feb;39(1):83–92. doi: 10.1006/hbeh.2000.1634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Heistermann M., Ziegler T., van Schaik C. P., Launhardt K., Winkler P., Hodges J. K. Loss of oestrus, concealed ovulation and paternity confusion in free-ranging Hanuman langurs. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Dec 7;268(1484):2445–2451. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Holekamp K. E., Smale L. Dispersal status influences hormones and behavior in the male spotted hyena. Horm Behav. 1998 Jun;33(3):205–216. doi: 10.1006/hbeh.1998.1450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hrdy S. B. Infanticide as a primate reproductive strategy. Am Sci. 1977 Jan-Feb;65(1):40–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hrdy S. B. The optimal number of fathers. Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000 Apr;907:75–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06617.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jennions M. D., Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2000 Feb;75(1):21–64. doi: 10.1017/s0006323199005423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Klette Kevin L., Horn Carl K., Stout Peter R., Anderson Cynthia J. LC-mS analysis of human urine specimens for 2-oxo-3-hydroxy LSD: method validation for potential interferants and stability study of 2-oxo-3-hydroxy LSD under various storage conditions. J Anal Toxicol. 2002 May-Jun;26(4):193–200. doi: 10.1093/jat/26.4.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Marshall T. C., Slate J., Kruuk L. E., Pemberton J. M. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol. 1998 May;7(5):639–655. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  12. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  13. Potts W. K., Manning C. J., Wakeland E. K. Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature. 1991 Aug 15;352(6336):619–621. doi: 10.1038/352619a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wedekind C., Füri S. Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Oct 22;264(1387):1471–1479. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES