Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:49:57.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Body size and sociobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

R. Norman Owen-Smith
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter considers the effects of large body size on social patterns, in particular (i) group size and structure; (ii) male dominance systems; (iii) female mate choice. Except for group size, these features are not readily characterized in numerical terms, and so cannot be related allometrically to body mass. Instead I will employ a cost/benefit analysis, assessing likely gains and losses in the factors determining evolutionary fitness, i.e. survival chances, reproductive contributions, and offspring survival. An inherent shortcoming of such an approach is that it does not adequately allow for possible interactions between these components (Crook & Goss-Custard 1972; Wilson 1975).

Grouping patterns

Jarman (1974) pointed out that among African bovids group size tends to increase with increasing body size. He explained this pattern in terms of the trade-off between the feeding costs of group formation, and the resultant anti-predation benefits. Because of their high specific metabolic rates, small antelopes are selective feeders on high quality plant parts. These are thinly scattered and quickly depleted. Large ungulates in contrast are relatively fiber-tolerant. They experience a much higher density of acceptable food, which is more uniformly distributed and depleted less by other animals foraging in the same area than is the food of small antelope. Intermediate sized species exhibit a gradient between these extremes. Hence the feeding cost of having close companions decreases with increasing body size.

This explains why large ungulates should be more tolerant of nearby conspecifics while foraging than smaller ungulates, but not why they should actively remain in a group. Jarman thus considered predation risks.

Type
Chapter
Information
Megaherbivores
The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology
, pp. 160 - 180
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×