Mothers matter! Maternal support, dominance status and mating success in male bonobos (Pan paniscus)
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Hypotheses for the Evolution of Reduced Reactive Aggression in the Context of Human Self-Domestication (2019) · cites this paper as 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
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 1705
- Pages
- 590-598
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- PMC
- PMC3025686
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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