Cited by 248Primate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Mothers matter! Maternal support, dominance status and mating success in male bonobos (Pan paniscus)

Open access
Surbeck, Martin, Mundry, Roger, Hohmann, Gottfried·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

Abstract

Variation in male mating success is often related to rank differences. Males who are unable to monopolize oestrous females alone may engage in coalitions, thus enhancing their mating success. While studies on chimpanzees and dolphins suggest that coalitions are independent of kinship, information from female philopatric species shows the importance of kin support, especially from mothers, on the reproductive success of females. Therefore, one might expect a similar effect on sons in male philopatric species. We evaluate mating success determinants in male bonobos using data from nine male individuals from a wild population. Results reveal a steep, linear male dominance hierarchy and a positive correlation between dominance status and mating success. In addition to rank, the presence of mothers enhances the mating success of sons and reduces the proportion of matings by the highest ranking male. Mothers and sons have high association rates and mothers provide agonistic aid to sons in conflicts with other males. As bonobos are male-philopatric and adult females occupy high dominance status, maternal support extends into adulthood and females have the leverage to intervene in male conflicts. The absence of female support to unrelated males suggests that mothers gain indirect fitness benefits by supporting their sons.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.1572

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In bonobos, the alpha male ordinarily owes his position to the support of his mother rather than to his ability to fight alone, and he is not necessarily dominant to the alpha female.

    “In bonobos, there is an alpha male, but he ordinarily owes his position to the support of his mother rather than to his ability to fight alone, and he is not necessarily dominant to the alpha female (Surbeck et al., 2011).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 248

Authors
Surbeck, M., Mundry, R., & Hohmann, G.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Published
2010-09
Volume
278
Issue
1705
Pages
590-598
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2149445053
Cited by
248
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • 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
Keywords
bonobos, male dominance hierarchy, male mating success, maternal support, kinship support, coalitions, indirect fitness benefits, female philopatry
MeSH terms
Agonistic Behavior, Animals, Female, Male, Maternal Behavior, Reproduction, Social Dominance, Pan paniscus

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