Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Olfactory cues influence female choice in two lek-breeding antelopes

Nature volume 356, pages 596–598 (1992)Cite this article

Abstract

PRONOUNCED differences in mating success between males holding territories clustered on traditional mating grounds (leks) are commonly cited as evidence of female choice for male phenotypes1–6but female ungulates appear to prefer particular territories6–12 even when no other individuals are on the lek11,12. Female choice of territories may be influenced by spatial features7–10,12,but observations suggest that females may also be attracted to successful territories by olfactory cues in the soil13. Here we report that transferring the topsoil between successful and unsuccessful territories on leks of two reduncine antelope species caused the numbers of females and matings on the unsuccessful territories to increase tenfold. Females were probably attracted to the soil by smells that had accumulated from heavy use by other females. Because of this attraction, stochastic process may play an important part in generating the variance in mating success between territory holders on leks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander, R. D. in Insects, Science and Society (ed. Pimental, D.) 35–77 (Academic, New York, 1975).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradbury, J. W. & Gibson, R. in Mate Choice (ed, Bateson, P.) 109–138 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. & Robertson, A. Nature 340, 463–465 (1989).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Höglund, J., Eriksson, M. & Lindell, L. E. Anim Behav. 40, 23–32 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. Nature 350, 33–38 (1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Balmford, A. P. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 87–92 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Buechner, H. K. & Schloeth, R. Z. Tierpsychol. 22, 209–225 (1965).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Floody, O. R. & Arnold, A. P. Z. Tierpsychol. 37, 192–212 (1975).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fryxell, J. M. Ethology 75, 211–220 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Apollonio, M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Mari, F. & Riva, M. Anim. Behav. 39, 205–212 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gosling, L. M. & Petrie, M. Anim. Behav. 40, 272–287 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deutsch, J. C. & Weeks, P. Behav. Ecol. (in the press).

  13. Modha, K. L. thesis, Makerere Univ. Kampala (1973).

  14. Buechner, H. K. Science 133, 698–699 (1961).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schuster, R. H. Science 192, 1240–1242 (1976).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baimford, A. P. thesis, Cambridge Univ. (1990).

  17. Gosling, L. M. Anim Behav 35, 620–622 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leuthold, W. Behaviour 27, 215–257 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lasley, B. L. Adv. vet. Sci. comp. Med. 30, 209–228 (1985).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hindle, J. E. & Hodges, J. K. J. reprod. Fert. 90, 571–580 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hogan-Warburg, A. J. Ardea 54, 111–229 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Green, D., Hiraiwa-Hawgawa, M. & Albon, S. D. Behavl Ecol. Sociobiol. 23, 281–296 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald, D. B. Anim. Behav. 37, 1007–1022 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Höglund, J., Alatalo, R. V. & Lundberg, A. Behaviour 114, 221–231 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gibson, R. M., Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L. Behavl Ecol. 2, 165–180 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bradbury, J. W., Vehrencamp, S. L. & Gibson, R. in Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith (eds Greenwood, P. J., Harvey, P. H. & Slatkin, M.) 301–314 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wade, M. J. & Pruett-Jones, S. G. Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87, 5749–5753 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Large Animal Research Group, Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

    James C. Deutsch & Rory J. C. Nefdt

Authors
  1. James C. Deutsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rory J. C. Nefdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deutsch, J., Nefdt, R. Olfactory cues influence female choice in two lek-breeding antelopes. Nature 356, 596–598 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/356596a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/356596a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing