IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v22y2011i1p120-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mate change in a socially monogamous mammal: evidences support the "forced divorce" hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Lardy
  • Aurélie Cohas
  • Irene Figueroa
  • Dominique Allainé

Abstract

Three main hypotheses have been proposed to explain mate switching in monogamous species: the "better option" hypothesis, the incompatibility hypothesis, and the "forced divorce" hypothesis. We tested the predictions of these hypotheses for the first time in a monogamous mammal using long-term data from a natural population of Alpine marmots (Marmota marmota). Generally, pair disruption resulted in one of the pair members staying on the territory and re-pairing with a younger incomer, whereas the other disappeared from the territory. Replaced individuals were rarely found as dominant in a territory but were often injured or found dead. Individuals gained no benefit from mate switching: new mates were neither heavier, larger, or more heterozygote nor more genetically compatible than previous mates. Moreover, no increase in reproductive success was observed after re-pairing. The relationship between reproductive failure and occurrence of mate change was mainly due to infanticide by the incomer. Our results support the "forced divorce" hypothesis in the Alpine marmot and suggest that mate switching has strong consequences on breeding success. We discuss the importance of taking into account the cases of forced divorce while studying mate switching process and its evolutionary consequences in monogamous species. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Lardy & Aurélie Cohas & Irene Figueroa & Dominique Allainé, 2011. "Mate change in a socially monogamous mammal: evidences support the "forced divorce" hypothesis," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(1), pages 120-125.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:1:p:120-125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arq168
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:1:p:120-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.