Monogamy and long-term pair bonding in vertebrates

Mock, Douglas W.; Fujioka, Masahiro

doi:10.1016/0169-5347(90)90045-f

Cited by 232 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, paternal investment sometimes does occur in species with internal fertilization, including most species of bird and a few mammals, most notably carnivores and some primates (Clutton-Brock, 1991;Dunbar, 1995;Mock & Fujioka, 1990). Again, the degree of paternal investment in these species appears to vary with paternity certainty, the availability of other mates, and the extent to which such investment benefits offspring.…”

Section: Why Parental Investment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, social monogamy and high levels of paternal investment are common in canids (e.g., coyotes, Canis latrens), who tend to have unusually large litters for a large mammal (Asa & Valdespino, 1998;Mock & Fujioka, 1990). Large litter sizes, prolonged offspring dependency, and the ability of the male to provide food during this dependency result in canid males being able to sire more offspring with a monogamous, high-investment mating strategy than with a polygynous mating strategy: For polygynous mammals, females tend to give birth to one offspring at a time (Clutton-Brock, 1991).…”

Section: Why Parental Investment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment.

Geary¹

2000

Psychological Bulletin

678

486

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In more than 95% of mammalian species, males provide little direct investment in the well-being of their offspring. Humans are one notable exception to this pattern and, to date, the factors that contributed to the evolution and the proximate expression of human paternal care are unexplained (T. H. Chitton-Brock, 1989). The nature, extent, and influence of human paternal investment on the physical and social well-being of children are reviewed in light of the social and ecological factors that are associated with paternal investment in other species. On the basis of this review, discussion of the evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment is provided.

show abstract

Section: Why Parental Investment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Parental Investment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment.

Geary¹

2000

Psychological Bulletin

678

486

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most empirical studies have examined the importance of male care in birds rather than in mammals (Bart & Tornes 1989;Mock & Fujioka 1990). Male birds are equally capable as females to incubate, brood and feed young, and hence a reproductively viable alternative to desertion for male birds is to stay and invest in young rather than seeking additional mates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive significance of male parental care in a monogamous mammal

Gubernick

Teferi²

2000

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

255

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paternal behaviour presumably evolved because male care of young was critical for o¡spring survival. We report ¢eld evidence indicating that paternal behaviour enhances o¡spring survival in a monogamous mammal, the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Male removal resulted in lower o¡spring survival in father-absent than in father-present families. New males took up residence with widowed females, but usually after females had stopped lactating, suggesting that the importance of the father is not primarily protection against infanticidal intruders but rather direct care of young.

show abstract

“…(iii) The amount of conflict over care may be reduced if mates have common interests, for example when mates remain mated monogamously over several breeding seasons. In this case, mates should have an interest to maintain their partners in good condition to enhance their survival and fecundity during following breeding events (reviewed in Mock & Fujioka 1990; see also Houston et al 2005). Field data suggest that in a high proportion pairs stay together for successive broods, but that monogamy is not lifelong (B. Taborsky, unpubl.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%