SEXUAL SEGREGATION IN UNGULATES: A NEW APPROACH

By K. Ruckstuhl, P. Neuhaus. 2000

277 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/13eae6010c9eed4414b522b56f184d525c9c5450

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Social dynamics among females and their influence on social structure in an East African chimpanzee community (2013, unknown): “This is seen at its extreme in societies with patterns of sexual segregation, for example many social ungulates (Main et al. 1996), but sexual segregation can also occur to varying degrees in societies with fissionefusion social organization (Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus 2000).”
Shallow food for deep divers: Dynamic foraging behavior of male sperm whales in a high latitude habitat (2008, background): “Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain such sexual segregation (Main et al., 1996; Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus, 2000), including sexual differences in nutrient requirements and activity budgets, scramble competition, reproductive strategies and social preference.”
SEXUAL SEGREGATION IN RUMINANTS: DEFINITIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT (2004, methodology): “Sexual segregation has been documented for a variety of plants, birds, and fishes (Bleich et al. 1997; Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus 2000), but studies of mammals dominate the literature on this topic.”
Consensus decision making in human crowds (2008, background): “In many situations conflicts may exist between the preferences of different group members (Conradt 1998; Ruckstuhl 1998; Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus 2000; Correspondence and present address: J. Dyer, Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.”
Evidence for gregarious behavior and age segregation in sauropod dinosaurs (2009, background): “For gregarious taxa with pronounced sexual dimorphism, reduction of ﬁ tness costs related to synchronization would favor the formation of groups based on sex or age (Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus, 2000; Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus, 2001).”
Intraspecific food competition in fishes (2006, background): “Several different mechanisms have been suggested to account for sexual segregation amongst which are differences in predation risk, food requirements and activity budgets between the sexes (Main et al. 1996; Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus 2000, 2002).”
Segregation is not only a matter of sex in Alpine ibex, Capra ibex ibex (2001, background): “(2) The ‘sexual dimorphism–body size’ hypothesis (also called ‘forage selection’ hypothesis by Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus 2000) assumes that, because of their smaller size, females need to eat higher-quality forage than males, which are more efficient at digesting high-fibre forage and can obtain their…”
Males in the shade: habitat use and sexual segregation in the Galápagos sea lion (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki) (2005, background): “The ‘social factor’ hypothesis (Bon and Campan 1996; Main et al. 1996; Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus 2000) centres on the idea that ultimate causes related to male mating success in polygynous species may have selected for sex-specific behaviors that may lead to social segregation.”
Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals (2005, background): “Segregation between the sexes, particularly with regard to herbivorous ungulates, has received wide scientific attention in recent years and is now recognized as a widespread phenomenon, occurring among a variety of mammalian taxa including primates, macropods, ungulates, seals, whales and elephants”
Tractable models for testing theories about natural strategies: foraging behaviour and habitat selection of free‐ranging sharks (2003, background): “Hypotheses to explain sexual segregation have focused on sex differences in predator avoidance strategies (ultimate explanation), differences in nutrient requirements, competition, and social preferences (all proximate explanations) ( Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus, 2000 ).”