Phylogenetic analysis of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope

被引:115
作者
Brashares, JS
Garland, T
Arcese, P
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Wildlife Ecol, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Zool, Madison, WI 53706 USA
关键词
African antelope; antipredator behavior; Bovidae; behavioral ecology; coadaptation; diet; group size; independent contrast; phylogenetic constraint; phylogeny;
D O I
10.1093/beheco/11.4.452
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Several authors have suggested that African antelope (family Bovidae) exemplify coadaptation of ecological, behavioral, and morphological traits. We tested four hypotheses related to the ecology and behavior of 75 species of African antelope using both conventional statistical techniques and techniques that account for the nonindependence of species by considering their phylogenetic relationships. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (1) dietary selectivity is correlated negatively with body mass, (2) dietary selectivity is correlated negatively with group size, (3) gregarious species either flee or counterattack when approached by predators, but solitary and pair-living species seek cover to hide, and (4) body mass and group size are correlated positively. Each of these hypotheses was examined for the global data set (family Bovidae) and, when possible, within the two antelope subfamilies (Antilopinae and Bovinae) and within 7 of the 10 antelope tribes. The results of our conventional and phylogenetically corrected analyses supported the hypotheses that group and body size vary predictably with feeding style and that antipredator behavior varies with group size. The hypothesis that body mass and group size are correlated positively was supported by conventional statistics, but these two traits were only weakly related using a phylogenetically corrected analysis. Moreover, qualitative and quantitative comparisons within each of the eight major African antelope tribes generally gave little support for the four hypotheses tested. Thus, although our analyses at the subfamily level provided results that were consistent with prior hypotheses, our analyses at the level of tribes were equivocal. We discuss several possible explanations for these differences.
引用
收藏
页码:452 / 463
页数:12
相关论文
共 87 条
[1]   DNA SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF THE ARTIODACTYL FAMILY BOVIDAE [J].
ALLARD, MW ;
MIYAMOTO, MM ;
JARECKI, L ;
KRAUS, F ;
TENNANT, MR .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1992, 89 (09) :3972-3976
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1982, E AFRICAN MAMMALS VO
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1982, Ethology: The mechanisms and evolution of behavior
[4]  
ARCESE P, 1995, ETHOLOGY, V99, P1
[5]   WHY ARE THERE NO VIVIPAROUS BIRDS [J].
BLACKBURN, DG ;
EVANS, HE .
AMERICAN NATURALIST, 1986, 128 (02) :165-190
[6]   SOCIAL-ORGANIZATION AND FORAGING IN EMBALLONURID BATS .4. PARENTAL INVESTMENT PATTERNS [J].
BRADBURY, JW ;
VEHRENCAMP, SL .
BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY, 1977, 2 (01) :19-29
[7]  
CALDER WA, 1984, SIZE FUNCTION LIFE H
[8]  
Cohen J., 1998, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, V2nd
[9]  
Crook J. H., 1965, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, VNo. 14, P181
[10]   EVOLUTION OF PRIMATE SOCIETIES [J].
CROOK, JH ;
GARTLAN, JS .
NATURE, 1966, 210 (5042) :1200-&