IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v14y2023i1d10.1038_s41467-023-39535-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group size and mating system predict sex differences in vocal fundamental frequency in anthropoid primates

Author

Listed:
  • Toe Aung

    (Pennsylvania State University
    Immaculata University)

  • Alexander K. Hill

    (University of Washington)

  • Dana Pfefferle

    (Welfare and Cognition Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, German Primate Center – Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Goettingen, Germany & Leibniz-ScienceCampus Primate Cognition, German Primate Center & University of Goettingen)

  • Edward McLester

    (Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior)

  • James Fuller

    (Columbia University)

  • Jenna M. Lawrence

    (Columbia University)

  • Ivan Garcia-Nisa

    (Durham University)

  • Rachel L. Kendal

    (Durham University)

  • Megan Petersdorf

    (Durham University)

  • James P. Higham

    (Department of Anthropology, New York University)

  • Gérard Galat

    (IRD (French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development))

  • Adriano R. Lameira

    (University of Warwick)

  • Coren L. Apicella

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Claudia Barelli

    (University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino)

  • Mary E. Glenn

    (California State Polytechnic University Humboldt)

  • Gabriel Ramos-Fernandez

    (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico)

  • David A. Puts

    (Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

Vocalizations differ substantially between the sexes in many primates, and low-frequency male vocalizations may be favored by sexual selection because they intimidate rivals and/or attract mates. Sexual dimorphism in fundamental frequency may be more pronounced in species with more intense male mating competition and in those with large group size, where social knowledge is limited and efficient judgment of potential mates and competitors is crucial. These non-mutually exclusive explanations have not been tested simultaneously across primate species. In a sample of vocalizations (n = 1914 recordings) across 37 anthropoid species, we investigated whether fundamental frequency dimorphism evolved in association with increased intensity of mating competition (H1), large group size (H2), multilevel social organization (H3), a trade-off against the intensity of sperm competition (H4), and/or poor acoustic habitats (H5), controlling for phylogeny and body size dimorphism. We show that fundamental frequency dimorphism increased in evolutionary transitions towards larger group size and polygyny. Findings suggest that low-frequency male vocalizations in primates may have been driven by selection to win mating opportunities by avoiding costly fights and may be more important in larger groups, where limited social knowledge affords advantages to rapid assessment of status and threat potential via conspicuous secondary sexual characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Toe Aung & Alexander K. Hill & Dana Pfefferle & Edward McLester & James Fuller & Jenna M. Lawrence & Ivan Garcia-Nisa & Rachel L. Kendal & Megan Petersdorf & James P. Higham & Gérard Galat & Adriano R, 2023. "Group size and mating system predict sex differences in vocal fundamental frequency in anthropoid primates," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-39535-w
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-39535-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39535-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-023-39535-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin D. Charlton & David Reby, 2016. "The evolution of acoustic size exaggeration in terrestrial mammals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, November.
    2. Cyril C Grueter, 2021. "Social signaling via coloration in large groups: a comment on Caro et al," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(4), pages 568-569.
    3. Benjamin D. Charlton & Megan A. Owen & Ronald R. Swaisgood, 2019. "Coevolution of vocal signal characteristics and hearing sensitivity in forest mammals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-7, December.
    4. András Liker & Robert P. Freckleton & Tamás Székely, 2013. "The evolution of sex roles in birds is related to adult sex ratio," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, June.
    5. Michael J. Sheehan & Thore J. Bergman, 2016. "Is there an evolutionary trade-off between quality signaling and social recognition?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 2-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susanne Shultz & Andrew S. Gersick, 2016. "The evolution of signaling complexity: a comment on Sheehan and Bergman," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 16-17.
    2. Rômulo Carleial & Tommaso Pizzari & David S. Richardson & Grant C. McDonald, 2023. "Disentangling the causes of temporal variation in the opportunity for sexual selection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Anton Baotic & Angela S Stoeger, 2017. "Sexual dimorphism in African elephant social rumbles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Vitor Passos Rios & Roberto André Kraenkel, 2017. "Do I Know You? How Individual Recognition Affects Group Formation and Structure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Amanda R. Ridley & David J. Humphries & Elizabeth M. Wiley, 2016. "Is information from both quality signaling and social recognition really redundant? A comment on Sheehan and Bergman," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 14-15.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:14:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-023-39535-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.