Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals

Nature volume 444, pages 1065–1068 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

In most animals, the sex that invests least in its offspring competes more intensely for access to the opposite sex and shows greater development of secondary sexual characters than the sex that invests most1,2. However, in some mammals where females are the primary care-givers, females compete more frequently or intensely with each other than males3,4,5. A possible explanation is that, in these species, the resources necessary for successful female reproduction are heavily concentrated and intrasexual competition for breeding opportunities is more intense among females than among males. Intrasexual competition between females is likely to be particularly intense in cooperative breeders where a single female monopolizes reproduction in each group6. Here, we use data from a twelve-year study of wild meerkats (Suricata suricatta), where females show high levels of reproductive skew, to show that females gain greater benefits from acquiring dominant status than males and traits that increase competitive ability exert a stronger influence on their breeding success. Females that acquire dominant status also develop a suite of morphological, physiological and behavioural characteristics that help them to control other group members. Our results show that sex differences in parental investment are not the only mechanism capable of generating sex differences in reproductive competition and emphasize the extent to which competition for breeding opportunities between females can affect the evolution of sex differences and the operation of sexual selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Dominance and breeding success in males and females.
Figure 2: Sex differences in aggression and
Figure 3: The acquisition and maintenance of dominance status.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trivers, R. L. in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (ed. Campbell, B.) 136–179 (Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, 1972)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson, M. Sexual Selection (eds Krebs, J. R. & Clutton-Brock, T. H.) (University Press, Princeton, 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Holekamp, K. E., Smale, L. & Szykman, M. Rank and reproduction in the female spotted hyaena. J. Reprod. Fertil. 108, 229–237 (1996)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett, N. C. & Faulkes, C. G. African Mole-rats: Ecology and Eusociality (University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Isaac, J. Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Mammal Rev. 35, 101–115 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hauber, M. E. & Lacey, E. A. Bateman's principle in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: the effects of non-breeding alloparents on variability in female and male reproductive success. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 903–914 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Cooperation, control and concession in meerkat groups. Science 291, 478–481 (2001b)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Griffin, A. S., Pemberton, J. M., Brotherton, P. N. M., Gaynor, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav. Ecol. 14, 472–480 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Scantlebury, M., Russell, A. F., McIlrath, G. M., Speakman, J. R. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. The energetics of lactation in cooperatively breeding meerkats Suricata suricatta. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 2147–2153 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Russell, A. F. & Sharpe, L. L. Behavioural tactics of breeders in cooperative meerkats. Anim. Behav. 68, 1029–1040 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Evolution and development of sex differences in cooperative behavior in meerkats. Science 297, 253–256 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlson, A. A. et al. Hormonal correlates of dominance in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). Horm. Behav. 46, 141–150 (2004)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Infanticide and expulsion of females in a cooperative mammal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 2291–2295 (1998b)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. West-Eberhard, M. J. Sexual selection, social competition and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 55, 155–183 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shellman-Reeve, J. S. in The Evolution of Social Behaviour in Insects and Arachnids (eds Choe, J. C. & Crespi, B. J.) 52–93 (University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Brett, R. A. in Reproduction in Naked Mole-rats (eds Sherman, P. W., Jarvis, J. U. M. & Alexander, R. D.) 67–96 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Faulkes, C. G. & Abbott, D. H. in Cooperative Breeding in Mammals (eds Solomon, N. G. & French, J. A.) 302–334 (University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  18. O'Riain, M. J., Jarvis, J. U. M., Alexander, R., Buffenstein, R. & Peeters, C. Morphological castes in a vertebrate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 13194–13197 (2000b)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sherman, P. W. & Jarvis, J. U. M. Extraordinary life spans of naked mole-rats (Heterocephalus glaber). J. Zool. 258, 307–311 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Engh, A. L. et al. Reproductive skew among males in a female-dominated mammalian society. Behav. Ecol. 13, 193–200 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dloniak, S. M., French, J. A. & Holekamp, K. E. Rank-related maternal effects of androgens on behaviour in wild spotted hyenas. Nature 440, 1190–1193 (2006)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Engh, A. & Holekamp, K. E. in Social Complexity (eds Waal, F. B. M. D. & Tyack, P.) (University Press, Harvard, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fricke, H. W. & Fricke, S. Monogamy and sex change by aggressive dominance in coral fish. Nature 266, 830–832 (1977)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Buston, P. Forcible eviction and prevention of recruitment in the clown anemone fish. Behav. Ecol. 14, 576–582 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heinsohn, R., Legge, S. & Endler, J. A. Extreme reversed sexual dichromatism in a bird without sex role reversal. Science 309, 617–619 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Emlen, S. T. & Oring, L. W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223 (1977)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Clutton-Brock, T. H. in Evolution from Molecules to Men (ed. Bendall, B. J.) 457–481 (University Press, Cambridge, 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, A. A. & Bjelvenmark, J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429, 551–554 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Darwin, C. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex (Murray, London, 1871)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Clutton-Brock, T. H. in Sexual Selection in Primates: New and Comparative Perspectives (eds Kappeler, P. M. & Schaik, C. P. V.) (University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Kotze, J. Kotze and Northern Cape Conservation for allowing us to work in the Kalahari; G. McIlrath for his contribution to habituating meerkat groups; T. Flower, F. Dalerum, M. Haupt, J. d. Toit and E Cameron of the University of Pretoria and P. Roth of the University of Cambridge for logistical support. We are grateful to the many volunteers, PhD students and post-docs who have assisted with data collection. We also thank A. Young, K. Isvaran and J. Hoogland for comments on previous drafts; P. Sherman and J. Shellman-Reeve for discussion; and the Natural Environmental Research Council, the Royal Society and the Earthwatch Institute for financial support.

Author Contributions T.H.C.B. and S.J.H. were responsible for the organisation and management of the project, drafting the manuscript and conducting most of the statistical analyses. Additional analyses were conducted by A.F.R. and L.L.S. G.S. was responsible for the genotyping and N.C.B. conducted all hormonal analyses. N.R.J. and M.B.M. contributed to the organisation and management of data collection in the field.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

    T. H. Clutton-Brock, S. J. Hodge, G. Spong, A. F. Russell & N. R. Jordan

  2. Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, 0002, Pretoria, South Africa

    T. H. Clutton-Brock & N. C. Bennett

  3. Department of Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden

    G. Spong

  4. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, S10 2TN, Sheffield, UK

    A. F. Russell

  5. Department of Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    L. L. Sharpe

  6. Zoologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, CH-8057, Switzerland

    M. B. Manser

Authors
  1. T. H. Clutton-Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. J. Hodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Spong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. F. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. R. Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. C. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. L. Sharpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. B. Manser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. H. Clutton-Brock.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods

This file contains Supplementary Methods describing details of the methods used to calculate variance in the breeding success of male and female meerkats.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clutton-Brock, T., Hodge, S., Spong, G. et al. Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444, 1065–1068 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05386

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05386

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing