Abstract
Group-living species are often organized into social dominance hierarchies, where high-ranking individuals have priority of access to resources, including estrous females. Traits associated with male dominance status should thus be correlated with reproductive success, but, with the exception of research on some primates, studies with both behavioral data to determine dominance hierarchies and a pedigree to identify male siring success are rare. For a wild population of sexually dimorphic eastern grey kangaroos Macropus giganteus, we characterized the social hierarchy over 6 non-consecutive years to investigate the relationship between male dominance and yearly reproductive success. Dominance hierarchies were steep, linear, and stable over time. Asymmetries in body mass and size between contestants were strong predictors of contest outcomes, and these morphological traits were positively correlated with dominance status. Males did not spatially avoid each other but tended to fight with individuals of similar size, suggesting that when asymmetries were large, contests were unlikely. Dominance status was under strong sexual selection, despite moderate monopolization of paternities by highly dominant males. Overall, these results suggest that body size and weapons are important determinants of dominance status and male reproductive success but that other traits play a considerable role. A clear-cut dominance hierarchy and strong selection on dominance status do not necessarily lead to monopolization of reproduction by the most dominant males in this strongly sexually dimorphic species.
Significance statement
It is generally assumed that high social rank in males is a very strong determinant of access to mates in polygamous species. Like other sexually dimorphic species, male kangaroos are thought to establish dominance hierarchies based on size. A few high-ranking males are then believed to monopolize matings. Our study confirms a strong correlation between body size and dominance status, and that males mostly engage in contests with males of similar size. However, we also found weak monopolization of reproduction, despite strong, positive sexual selection on dominance status. This result suggests that strong selection for high rank does not imply that subordinate males cannot sire offspring. A few highly dominant males had high reproductive success but did not monopolize matings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are attached as Supplementary Information Files.
Code availability
R functions are attached as Supplementary Information Files.
References
Albers PCH, de Vries H (2001) Elo-rating as a tool in the sequential estimation of dominance strengths. Anim Behav 61:489–495. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1571
Alberts SC, Buchan JC, Altmann J (2006) Sexual selection in wild baboons: from mating opportunities to paternity success. Anim Behav 72:1177–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.05.001
Altmann SA (1962) A field study of the sociobiology of rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta. Ann NY Acad Sci 102:338–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1962.tb13650.x
Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534
Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mari F (1989) Correlates of copulatory success in a fallow deer lek. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302925
Bergeron P, Grignolio S, Apollonio M, Shipley B, Festa-Bianchet M (2010) Secondary sexual characters signal fighting ability and determine social rank in Alpine ibex (Capra ibex). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1299–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0944-x
Briffa M, Lane SM (2017) The role of skill in animal contests: a neglected component of fighting ability. Proc R Soc B 284:20171596. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1596
Briffa M, Sneddon LU, Wilson AJ (2015) Animal personality as a cause and consequence of contest behaviour. Biol Lett 11:20141007. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.1007
Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, Skaug HJ, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J 9:378–400. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Modell 197:516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017
Chambers JL, Garant D (2010) Determinants of population genetic structure in eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus): the role of landscape barriers and sex-biased dispersal. J Hered 101:413–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esq029
Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 236:339–372. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1989.0027
Clutton-Brock TH (2017) Reproductive competition and sexual selection. Phil Trans R Soc B 372:20160310. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0310
Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE (1979) The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim Behav 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90141-6
Couchoux C, Garant D, Aubert M, Clermont J, Réale D (2021) Behavioral variation in natural contests: integrating plasticity and personality. Behav Ecol 32:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/araa127
Coulson G (1997) Repertoires of social behaviour in captive and free-ranging grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus and Macropus fuliginosus (Marsupialia: Macropodidae). J Zool 242:119–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb02933.x
Coulson G, Cripps J, Wilson M (2014) Hopping down the main street: eastern grey kangaroos at home in an urban matrix. Animals 4:272–291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4020272
Crespi BJ (1988) Risks and benefits of lethal male fighting in the colonial, polygynous thrips Hoplothrips karnyi (Insecta: Thysanoptera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299845
Croft DB, Snaith F (1991) Boxing in red kangaroos, Macropus rufus: aggression or play? Int J Comp Psychol 4:221–236
David HA (1987) Ranking from unbalanced paired-comparison data. Biometrika 74:432–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/74.2.432
de Vries H (1998) Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. Anim Behav 55:827–843. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1997.0708
Dewsbury DA (1982) Dominance rank, copulatory behavior, and differential reproduction. Q Rev Biol 57:135–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/412672
Douglas PH, Ngonga Ngomo A-C, Hohmann G (2017) A novel approach for dominance assessment in gregarious species: ADAGIO. Anim Behav 123:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.014
Drews C (1993) The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour 125:283–313
Ellis L (1995) Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: a cross-species comparison. Ethol Sociobiol 16:257–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00050-U
Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.327542
Farine DR, Sánchez-Tójar A (2019) aniDom: inferring dominance hierarchies and estimating uncertainty. R package version 0.1.4, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=aniDom
Fieberg J, Kochanny CO (2005) Quantifying home-range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. J Wildlife Manage 69:1346–1359. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1346:QHOTIO]2.0.CO;2
Foerster S, Franz M, Murray CM, Gilby IC, Feldblum JT, Walker KK, Pusey AE (2016) Chimpanzee females queue but males compete for social status. Sci Rep 6:35404. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35404
Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Gansloßer U (1989) Agonistic behaviour in macropodids - a review. In: Grigg G, Jarman PJ, Hume I (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-Kangaroos, vol 2. Surrey Beatty & Sons. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia, pp 475–503
Grant TR (1973) Dominance and association among members of a captive and a free-ranging group of grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus). Anim Behav 21:449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80004-1
Haley MP, Deutsch CJ, Le Boeuf BJ (1994) Size, dominance and copulatory success in northern elephant seals. Anim Behav 48:1249–1260. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1361
Hartig F (2022) DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.5, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
Hoelzel AR, Le Boeuf BJ, Reiter J, Campagna C (1999) Alpha-male paternity in elephant seals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:298–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050623
Hosken DJ, Buss DM, Hodgson DJ (2018) Beware the F test (or, how to compare variances). Anim Behav 136:119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.12.014
Hynes EF, Rudd CD, Temple-Smith PD, Sofronidis G, Paris D, Shaw G, Renfree MB (2005) Mating sequence, dominance and paternity success in captive male tammar wallabies. Reproduction 130:123–130. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00624
Jarman PJ (1983) Mating system and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biol Rev 58:485–520
Jarman PJ (1989) Sexual dimorphism in Macropodoidea. In: Macropods: The Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies, and Rat-kangaroos, vol. 2. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia, pp 433–447
Jarman PJ, Coulson G (1989) Dynamics and adaptiveness of grouping in macropods. In: Grigg G, Jarman PJ, Hume I (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos, vol 2. Surrey Beatty & Sons. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia, pp 527–547
Jarman PJ, Southwell CJ (1986) Grouping, associations, and reproductive strategies in eastern grey kangaroos. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 399–428
Jennings DJ, Gammell MP, Carlin CM, Hayden TJ (2006) Is difference in body weight, antler length, age or dominance rank related to the number of fights between fallow deer (Dama dama)? Ethology 112:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01154.x
Jennings DJ, Boys RJ, Gammell MP (2017) Weapon damage is associated with contest dynamics but not mating success in fallow deer (Dama dama). Biol Lett 13:20170565. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0565
Jennings DJ, Amin B, Gammell MP (2021) Third-party assessment of contestants during fallow deer fights increases with resource abundance and dominance rank. Anim Behav 177:81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.04.020
Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x
Kaufmann JH (1975) Field observations of the social behaviour of the eastern grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus. Anim Behav 23:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(75)90066-4
Kaufmann JH (1983) On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol Rev 58:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1983.tb00379.x
King WJ, Wilson ME, Allen T, Festa-Bianchet M, Coulson G (2011) A capture technique for free-ranging eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) habituated to humans. Aust Mammal 33:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM10029
King WJ, Forsyth DM, Coulson G, Festa-Bianchet M (2015a) Adoption in eastern grey kangaroos: a consequence of misdirected care? PLoS ONE 10:e0125182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125182
King WJ, Garant D, Festa-Bianchet M (2015b) Mother-offspring distances reflect sex differences in fine-scale genetic structure of eastern grey kangaroos. Ecol Evol 5:2084–2094. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1498
Kingsolver JG, Diamond SE, Siepielski AM, Carlson SM (2012) Synthetic analyses of phenotypic selection in natural populations: lessons, limitations and future directions. Evol Ecol 26:1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-012-9563-5
Klug H, Heuschele J, Jennions MD, Kokko H (2010) The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J Evol Biol 23:447–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01921.x
Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection and correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226
Lidgard DC, Boness DJ, Bowen WD, McMillan JI (2005) State-dependent male mating tactics in the grey seal: the importance of body size. Behav Ecol 16:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari023
Lüdecke D, Ben-Shachar M, Patil I, Waggoner P, Makowski D (2021) performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J Open Source Softw 6:3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
Martin P, Bateson P (2007) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(74)90110-6
Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18
McCullough EL, Simmons LW (2016) Selection on male physical performance during male-male competition and female choice. Behav Ecol 27:1288–1295. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw033
McCullough EL, Miller CW, Emlen DJ (2016) Why sexually selected weapons are not ornaments. Trends Ecol Evol 31:742–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.004
McDonald DB, Shizuka D (2013) Comparative transitive and temporal orderliness in dominance networks. Behav Ecol 24:511–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars192
McDonald GC, James R, Krause J, Pizzari T (2013) Sexual networks: measuring sexual selection in structured, polyandrous populations. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120356–20120356. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0356
McElligott AG, Gammell MP, Harty HC et al (2001) Sexual size dimorphism in fallow deer (Dama dama): do larger, heavier males gain greater mating success? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:266–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000293
Miller EJ, Eldridge MDB, Cooper DW, Herbert CA (2010) Dominance, body size and internal relatedness influence male reproductive success in eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus). Reprod Fertil Dev 22:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD09061
Minta SC (1992) Tests of spatial and temporal interaction among animals. Ecol Appl 2:178–188
Montana L (2021) Sexual selection in a sexually dimorphic species: Effect of body size on reproductive success and offspring sex ratio in kangaroos. PhD thesis, Université de Sherbrooke
Montana L, Rousseu F, Garant D, Festa-Bianchet M (2020) Siring success in kangaroos: size matters for those in the right place at the right time. Behav Ecol 31:750–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/araa020
Morrissey MB, Ruxton GD (2018) Multiple regression is not multiple regressions: the meaning of multiple regression and the non-problem of collinearity. Philos Theor Pract Biol 10:3. https://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.003
Murray CM, Mane SV, Pusey AE (2007) Dominance rank influences female space use in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes: towards an ideal despotic distribution. Anim Behav 74:1795–1804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.03.024
Nakagawa S, Johnson PCD, Schielzeth H (2017) The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J R Soc Interface 14:20170213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
Neumann C, Kulik L (2020) EloRating: animal dominance hierarchies by Elo rating. R package version 0.46.11, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EloRating
Neumann C, Duboscq J, Dubuc C, Ginting A, Irwan AM, Agil M, Widdig A, Engelhardt A (2011) Assessing dominance hierarchies: validation and advantages of progressive evaluation with Elo-rating. Anim Behav 82:911–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.016
Noonan MJ, Tucker MA, Fleming CH et al (2019) A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation. Ecol Monogr 89:e01344. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1344
Paplinska J, Bencini R, Fisher DO et al (2010) A review of evidence concerning sperm competition in the superfamily Macropodoidea. In: Coulson G, Eldridge MDB (eds) Macropods: The Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies, and Rat-kangaroos. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, pp 65–76
Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(74)90111-8
Peig J, Green AJ (2010) The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length. Funct Ecol 24:1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01751.x
Pelletier F, Festa-Bianchet M (2006) Sexual selection and social rank in bighorn rams. Anim Behav 71:649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.008
Piza-Roca C, Strickland K, Schoeman D, Frere CH (2018) Eastern water dragons modify their social tactics with respect to the location within their home range. Anim Behav 144:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.08.001
Plaisir C-A, King WJ, Forsyth DM, Festa-Bianchet M (2022) Effects of rainfall forage biomass and population density on survival and growth of juvenile kangaroos. J Mammal. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyab132
Poole WE, Catling PC (1974) Reproduction in the two species of grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus Shaw and M. foliginosus (Desmarest). I. Sexual maturity and oestrus. Aust J Zool 22:277–302
Qvarnström A, Forsgren E (1998) Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01513-4
R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.r-project.org/
Rico-Guevara A, Hurme KJ (2019) Intrasexually selected weapons. Biol Rev 94:60–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12436
Rioux-Paquette E, Garant D, Martin AM, Coulson G, Festa-Bianchet M (2015) Paternity in eastern grey kangaroos: moderate skew despite strong sexual dimorphism. Behav Ecol 26:1147–1155. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv052
Russell EM (1974) The biology of kangaroos (Marsupialia-Macropodidae). Mamm Rev 4:1–59
Russell EM (1984) Social behaviour and social organization of marsupials. Mamm Rev 14:101–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00343.x
Sánchez-Tójar A, Schroeder J, Farine DR (2018) A practical guide for inferring reliable dominance hierarchies and estimating their uncertainty. J Anim Ecol 87:594–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12776
Schoepf I, Schradin C (2012) Better off alone! Reproductive competition and ecological constraints determine sociality in the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). J Anim Ecol 81:649–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01939.x
Shizuka D, McDonald DB (2012) A social network perspective on measurements of dominance hierarchies. Anim Behav 83:925–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.011
Spong GF, Hodge SJ, Young AJ, Clutton-Brock TH (2008) Factors affecting the reproductive success of dominant male meerkats. Mol Ecol 17:2287–2299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03734.x
Strickland K, Levengood A, Foroughirad V, Mann J, Krzyszczyk E, Frère CH (2017) A framework for the identification of long-term social avoidance in longitudinal datasets. R Soc Open Sci 4:170641. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170641
Stuart-Fox DM, Firth D, Moussalli A, Whiting MJ (2006) Multiple signals in chameleon contests: designing and analysing animal contests as a tournament. Anim Behav 71:1263–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.028
Toni P (2018) Combat leads to intraspecific killing in eastern grey kangaroos. Aust Mammal 40:109–111. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM16057
Van Winkle W (1975) Comparison of several probabilistic home-range models. J Wildlife Manage 39:118–123
Walker LA, Holwell GI (2018) The role of exaggerated male chelicerae in male–male contests in New Zealand sheet-web spiders. Anim Behav 139:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.02.020
West-Eberhard MJ (1979) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc Am Philos Soc 123:222–234
Wilson AJ, de Boer M, Arnott G, Grimmer A (2011a) Integrating personality research and animal contest theory: aggressiveness in the green swordtail Xiphophorus helleri. PLoS ONE 6:e28024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028024
Wilson AJ, Morrissey MB, Adams MJ, Walling CA, Guinness FE, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2011b) Indirect genetics effects and evolutionary constraint: an analysis of social dominance in red deer, Cervus elaphus. J Evol Biol 24:772–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02212.x
Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168
Wright E, Galbany J, McFarlin SC, Ndayishimiye E, Stoinski TS, Robbins MM (2019) Male body size, dominance rank and strategic use of aggression in a group-living mammal. Anim Behav 151:87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.03.011
Wroblewski EE, Murray CM, Keele BF, Schumacher-Stankey JC, Hahn BH, Pusey AE (2009) Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Anim Behav 77:873–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.014
Wyman MT, Pinter-Wollman N, Mooring MS (2021) Trade-offs between fighting and breeding: a social network analysis of bison male interactions. J Mammal 102:504–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa172
Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3
Acknowledgements
We thank all students and assistants who helped with fieldwork and recorded behavioral observations from 2010 to 2018. Jennifer Chambers, Elise Rioux-Paquette, and Hélène Presseault-Gauvin performed genetic analyses before 2015. We are grateful to Patrick Bergeron, Marc Bélisle, Catherine Geoffroy, and members of the Festa-Bianchet research group for fruitful discussions, as well as to François Rousseu for statistical advice. We thank Alastair Wilson and an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We appreciate the logistical support of Parks Victoria, the University of Melbourne, and the Australian National University.
Funding
Funding was received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant to MF-B; Postgraduate Scholarship to WJK), Université de Sherbrooke (Doctoral Scholarship to LM), University of Queensland (International Research Tuition Award to WJK), Bishop’s University (Senate Research Committee grant to WJK), and the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment (research grant to WJK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LM conceived the idea with inputs from all co-authors. LM, WJK, GC, and MF-B collected field data. LM and WJK performed genetic labwork. LM performed statistical analyses and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed critically to the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the use of animals were followed. Animal handling was approved by the Animal Ethics Committees of the University of Melbourne (approval 1312902.1) and the Australian National University (approval A2018/02), and by the Animal Care Committee of the Université de Sherbrooke (protocol MFB 2016–01). The Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning authorized field research with permit 10008630.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by J. Mann.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is a contribution to the Topical Collection Measuring individual reproductive success in the wild—Guest Editors: Janet Mann and Marco Festa-Bianchet.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Montana, L., King, W.J., Coulson, G. et al. Large eastern grey kangaroo males are dominant but do not monopolize matings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 76, 78 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-022-03185-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-022-03185-7