CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Animal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Territoriality, sociality and male weaponry shape horn investment in female bovids

Lopez, Nicole, Stankowich, Theodore·2025·Behavioral Ecology
DOI 10.1093/beheco/araf147
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Male weaponry is well understood and widely studied across taxa, yet female weaponry remains comparatively overlooked and the evolutionary drivers of such traits in females are still not well defined. In Bovidae, males typically use horns in sexual contests, but females show considerable variation in horn presence and size across species. Earlier research suggested female horns may function in intraspecific competition for territory or social rank, or serve as antipredator defense in exposed habitats, however, these studies did not directly test how socio-ecological factors shape variation in female horn length. In our study, we reevaluated the influence of socio-ecological factors on horn presence and rigorously tested their effects on female weapon investment (FWQ). Across family-level comparative analyses (N = 115), female territoriality, sociality, and body mass positively predicted horn presence. Among horned females (N = 80), horn investment differed among tribes and increased with sociality. Female horns did not scale with body mass and territorial and pair-bonded species—such as klipspringers and duikers—tended to have relatively shorter horns. Although male horn investment did not directly predict whether females bore horns, in species where females did, their horn investment scaled positively with that of males. Our results support female horn presence is primarily shaped by intraspecific competition and offset by cost-minimization at larger-bodied species, while providing new evidence that social selection influences female weapon investment in mammals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/araf147

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Olson, 1999, Morphological integration
  2. R Core Team, 2021, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
  3. Roberts, 1994, Mechanics and function of territorial behaviour in klipspringer
  4. Wilson, 2011, Handbook of the mammals of the world

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Lopez, N., & Stankowich, T.
Affiliations
California State University, Long Beach (US)
Corresponding author
Lopez, Nicole
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2025-12-13
Volume
37
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
DOI
10.1093/beheco/araf147
OpenAlex
W7116914962
Cited by
2
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)
Locations
Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement
  • NIH (#R25GM071638)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
Bovidae, female territoriality, sociality, body mass, intraspecific competition, social selection, pair bonding, klipspringer, duikers, horn size, cost minimization, socio-ecological factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review