Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 11, 2004
Behavioral Ecology 2004 15(5):705-714; doi:10.1093/beheco/arh110
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kinship and sociality in coastal river otters: are they related?
a Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska 99824, USA b Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA c Department of Zoology and Physiology, 1000 East University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA d Institute for Nature Conservation Research, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel
Address correspondence to M. Ben-David. E-mail: bendavid{at}uwyo.edu.
Previous studies of coastal river otters (Lontra canadensis) in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA, documented atypical social organization for mammals. Social groups were composed largely of males, but some males remained solitary year-round and most females were asocial. Because, in carnivores, groups are usually composed of highly related individuals but group living also provides advantages unrelated to kinship, we concurrently evaluated the role of relatedness and ecological benefits in sociality among coastal river otters. By using DNA microsatellite analysis and radiotelemetry, we were able to reject the hypothesis that social groups of otters were kin based. In addition, we found no indication of kin avoidance, as would be expected from low dispersal and high local competition. Sociality conferred no reproductive benefits or costs to otters; number of offspring and number of relatives in the population did not differ between social and solitary animals. Solitary males were not older or larger than were social males, and there was no relation between male size and number of offspring, indicating that sexual selection did not mask a potential relation between sociality and reproductive success. Among coastal river otters in this region, sociality could be explained by the benefits obtained from cooperative foraging on high-quality schooling pelagic fishes. Such benefits did not require association with kin, resulting in no selection pressure for kin-based groups. The prediction that the degree of sociality in the population will fluctuate relative to the abundance of schooling pelagic fishes merits further investigation.
Key words: Alaska, kin selection, Lontra canadensis, microsatellite DNA, reproductive success, schooling pelagic fishes, sexual selection.