The pairbond in klipspringer

doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80026-1

Animal Behaviour

Volume 28, Issue 1, February 1980, Pages 219-229

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80026-1 Get rights and content

Abstract

Like many small African antelopes, klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus) live in territorial pairs. The structure of the pairbond and the ways in which it is maintained through time are described quantitatively, using data on co-ordination of behaviour, activity budgets, progression orders and visual monitoring. Although both partners play an active role, the female's behaviour tends to be more concerned with efficient foraging, while the male's behaviour seems to emphasize those activities that allow him to maintain, contact with the female. Because the male needs to spend less time feeding than does the female, he detects predators more frequently, a behaviour that probably allows the female to feed more efficiently. Both sexes apparently defend the territory against intruders, although the functional significance of the territory remains unclear.

References (28)

IngramJ.C.
Interactions between parents and infants, and the development of independence in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)
Anim. Behav.
(1977)
PulliamH.R.
On the advantages of flocking
J. theor. Biol.
(1973)
TreismanM.
Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. I. Models for concealment and evasion
Anim. Behav.
(1975)
VineI.
The risk of visual detection and pursuit by a predator and the selective advantage of flocking behaviour
J. theor. Biol.
(1971)
AbramsJ.T.
Fundamental approach to the nutrition of the captive wild herbivore
AltmannS.A. et al.
Two models for the evolution of polygyny
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
(1977)
AndersenD.C. et al.
Socioecology of marmots: female reproductive strategies
Ecology
(1976)
ChiversD.J.
The Siamang in Malaya. A Field Study of a Primate in Tropical Rain Forest
DubostG.
L'organisation spatiale et sociale du Muntiacus reevesi Ogilby 1839 en semi-liberté
Mammalia
(1970)
DunbarR.I.M.
Competition and niche separation in a high altitude herbivore community in Ethiopia
E. Afr. Wildl. J.
(1978)

Dunbar, R. I. M. In press. Population demography, social organisation and mating strategies. In: Ecological Influences...

DunbarR.I.M. et al.

Social organization and ecology of the klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus) in Ethiopia

Z. Tierpsychol.

(1974)

DunbarR.I.M. et al.

FloodyO.R. et al.

Uganda kob (Adenota kob thomasi): territoriality and the spatial distributions of sexual and agonistic behaviours at a territorial ground

Z. Tierpsychol.

(1975)

Cited by (61)

What is a pair bond?
2021, Hormones and Behavior
Citation Excerpt :
Among order Artiodactyla, pair bonds are characterized by a single breeding pair of adults sharing and defending a mutual territory. Klipspringers (Oreotragus oreotragus) are defined as pair bonding on the basis that they hold a mutual territory, engage in pair maintenance through mutual scent marking (Burger, 1997; Dunbar and Dunbar, 1974), territorial defense (Dunbar and Dunbar, 1980), and joint vocal displays (Tilson and Norton, 2012). Additionally, klipspringers demonstrate behavioral synchrony and a high degree of proximity maintenance with their pair mates, as well as an intolerance of opposite-sex strangers (Dunbar and Dunbar, 1980; Norton, 1980).
Pair bonding is a psychological construct that we attempt to operationalize via behavioral and physiological measurements. Yet, pair bonding has been both defined differently in various taxonomic groups as well as used loosely to describe not just a psychological and affective phenomenon, but also a social structure or mating system (either social monogamy or just pair living). In this review, we ask the questions: What has been the historical definition of a pair bond? Has this definition differed across taxonomic groups? What behavioral evidence do we see of pair bonding in these groups? Does this observed evidence alter the definition of pair bonding? Does the observed neurobiology underlying these behaviors affect this definition as well? And finally, what are the upcoming directions in which the study of pair bonding needs to head?
Mating Systems in Mammals
2019, Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, Second Edition: Volume 1-5
Mating systems are a critical part of the life history of all animals, including mammals. Across 21 orders of Mammalia, the patterns for mating are highly varied, both within and between orders. The major mating types are polygyny, polyandry, and promiscuity, each having several subcategories. There are, in addition, specialized mating systems; this includes harem formation, cooperative breeding, lekking, and eusociality. In this essay I compared and contrasted the mating systems with regard to (a) habitat types, (b) diet, (c) social organization, (d) spatial distribution, and (e) dispersal by gender. A matrix of traits cross-classified with orders revealed some patterns, but lots of variation, which might be even greater if the sampling could be done at the family rather than the ordinal level. All three mating systems were characterized by territorial and home range spatial systems and male-biased dispersal. Monogamy and polygyny were associated with both arboreal and terrestrial habitats and with all three types of social systems; solitary, pairs, and groups. Patterns for diets involved combinations of two major diets from herbivore, insectivore, and omnivore for each mating type. At this time, we can describe the systems at the macro level, but a Class Mammalia scheme is not possible without much additional data.
Mating systems in mammals
2019, Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior
Mating systems are a critical part of the life history of all animals, including mammals. Across 21 orders of Mammalia, the patterns for mating are highly varied, both within and between orders. The major mating types are polygyny, polyandry, and promiscuity, each having several subcategories. There are, in addition, specialized mating systems; this includes harem formation, cooperative breeding, lekking, and eusociality. In this essay I compared and contrasted the mating systems with regard to (a) habitat types, (b) diet, (c) social organization, (d) spatial distribution, and (e) dispersal by gender. A matrix of traits cross-classified with orders revealed some patterns, but lots of variation, which might be even greater if the sampling could be done at the family rather than the ordinal level. All three mating systems were characterized by territorial and home range spatial systems and male-biased dispersal. Monogamy and polygyny were associated with both arboreal and terrestrial habitats and with all three types of social systems; solitary, pairs, and groups. Patterns for diets involved combinations of two major diets from herbivore, insectivore, and omnivore for each mating type. At this time, we can describe the systems at the macro level, but a Class Mammalia scheme is not possible without much additional data.
Four errors and a fallacy: pitfalls for the unwary in comparative brain analyses
2023, Biological Reviews
Evolution from monogamy to polygyny: insights from the solitary Japanese serow
2023, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Latrine ecology of nilgai antelope
2022, Journal of Mammalogy

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Article preview

Animal Behaviour

Abstract

References (28)

Interactions between parents and infants, and the development of independence in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)

Anim. Behav.

On the advantages of flocking

J. theor. Biol.

Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. I. Models for concealment and evasion

Anim. Behav.

The risk of visual detection and pursuit by a predator and the selective advantage of flocking behaviour

J. theor. Biol.

Fundamental approach to the nutrition of the captive wild herbivore

Two models for the evolution of polygyny

Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.

Socioecology of marmots: female reproductive strategies

Ecology

The Siamang in Malaya. A Field Study of a Primate in Tropical Rain Forest

L'organisation spatiale et sociale du Muntiacus reevesi Ogilby 1839 en semi-liberté

Mammalia

Competition and niche separation in a high altitude herbivore community in Ethiopia

E. Afr. Wildl. J.

Social organization and ecology of the klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus) in Ethiopia

Z. Tierpsychol.

Uganda kob (Adenota kob thomasi): territoriality and the spatial distributions of sexual and agonistic behaviours at a territorial ground

Z. Tierpsychol.

Cited by (61)

What is a pair bond?

Mating Systems in Mammals

Mating systems in mammals

Four errors and a fallacy: pitfalls for the unwary in comparative brain analyses

Evolution from monogamy to polygyny: insights from the solitary Japanese serow

Latrine ecology of nilgai antelope