2006
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0437
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic consequences of sex-biased dispersal in a solitary carnivore: Yellowstone cougars

Abstract: Male-biased dispersal is a common trait in mammals, including carnivores, but its genetic consequences at the population level have been rarely considered for solitary species. We used long-term genetic data from cougars (Puma concolor) in and around Yellowstone National Park to test predictions based on differences in dispersal behaviour among males and females. Consistent with frequent long-distance dispersal of males, we found support for our prediction of less than expected allele sharing in pair-wise comp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
39
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
5
39
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In the study area, we observed a higher number of females (76.4%) than males (23.6%). Contrary to the expected (Logan & Sweanor 2001, Biek et al 2006, we sampled few males, none of which resident.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 47%
“…In the study area, we observed a higher number of females (76.4%) than males (23.6%). Contrary to the expected (Logan & Sweanor 2001, Biek et al 2006, we sampled few males, none of which resident.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 47%
“…Although inbreeding avoidance has been suggested as a causal factor for male dispersal, it also may facilitate female dispersal in fully occupied habitats. Biek et al (2006) found that intrapopulation female movements were beneficial for maintaining population genetic viability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25], [27], [58]. If female T. tana disperse more often or farther than males, then fewer closely related pairs of females should occur in the sample.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%