Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 9;3(11):160441.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.160441. eCollection 2016 Nov.

Chimpanzee Fathers Bias Their Behaviour Towards Their Offspring

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Chimpanzee Fathers Bias Their Behaviour Towards Their Offspring

Carson M Murray et al. R Soc Open Sci. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Promiscuous mating was traditionally thought to curtail paternal investment owing to the potential costs of providing care to unrelated infants. However, mounting evidence suggests that males in some promiscuous species can recognize offspring. In primates, evidence for paternal care exists in promiscuous Cercopithecines, but less is known about these patterns in other taxa. Here, we examine two hypotheses for paternal associations with lactating mothers in eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii): paternal effort, whereby males associate and interact more with their own infants, and mating effort, whereby males invest in mothers and offspring for mating privileges. We found that fathers associated more with their offspring than they did with non-kin infants, particularly early in life when infanticide risk is highest. Additionally, fathers and their infant offspring interacted more than expected. Notably, association between fathers and mother-infant pairs did not predict the probability of siring the mother's next offspring. Our results support the paternal effort, but not the mating effort hypothesis in this species. Chimpanzees are one of the most salient models for the last common ancestor between Pan and Homo, thus our results suggest that a capacity for paternal care, possibly independent of long-term mother-father bonds, existed early in hominin evolution.

Keywords: Gombe National Park; chimpanzees; paternal care; promiscuity; protection services.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Mean ± s.e. standardized association between adult males and MI pairs in each six-month age bin by kin category for the within period approach. See table 1 for sample sizes. **p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean ± s.e. standardized association between adult males and MI pairs in each six-month age bin by kin category for the between period approach. See table 1 for sample sizes. *p < 0.05.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Mean ± s.e. observed minus expected proportion of time infants (Ninfants = 25) during late infancy spent interacting with individuals from each kin type. **p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 10 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Cambridge, MA: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.
    1. Wittig A. 2007. Paternal kin discrimination: the evidence and likely mechanisms. Biol. Rev. 82, 319–334. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00011.x) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neff B. 2003. Decisions about parental care in responses to perceived paternity. Nature 422, 716–719. (doi:10.1038/nature01528) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mehlis T, Bakker TCM, Engqvist L, Frommen JG. 2010. To eat or not to eat: egg-based assessment of paternity triggers fine-tuned decisions about filial cannibalism. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2627–2635. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0234) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davies NB, Hatchwell BJ, Robson T, Burke T. 1992. Paternity and parental effort in dunnocks Prunella modularis: how good are male chick-feeding rules? Anim. Behav. 43, 729–745. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80197-6) - DOI

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback