DOI: 10.5061/dryad.d2547d896
title: Data from: Female mate choice in wild Kenyan blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis)

description: Female mate choice may drive sexual selection, but discerning whether
 female behaviors reflect the free expression of choice or responses to
 constraints can be difficult. We investigated the efficacy of female
 choice in wild blue monkeys using 10 years of behavioral and paternity
 data (2002-2011) encompassing 178 male-female dyads and 63 infants.
 Although blue monkeys live modally in one-male polygynous groups, where
 male-biased intersexual power is expected, females can access multiple
 potential mates during seasonal male influxes and occasional intergroup
 encounters. Additionally, extra-group males sire offspring. We examined
 the unsolicited proceptive behavior that females directed to males
 (corrected for male availability) to determine (1) if blue monkey females
 express mate choice by preferentially soliciting sexual interactions with
 certain males, (2) which males females prefer, and (3) if observed female
 mate preferences are successful in influencing paternity and infant
 survival. The two datasets included here allowed us to answer these
 questions. The first dataset provides information on the degree of
 preference a female in her conceptive period exhibited for each male that
 was present, the status of each male (resident or non-resident), and
 whether the female’s most preferred male sired her offspring. The second
 dataset provides information on whether a female’s parity, rank, or
 familiarity with her resident male influenced the likelihood of siring her
 offspring with her most preferred male (or with the resident male) and
 whether an infant was more likely to survive if sired by the male its
 mother most preferred.
description: All data came from a long-term field study. Behavioral data
 collection was part of long-term population monitoring and included daily
 census data, focal follows of adult females, and ad libitum data on social
 and sexual interactions. Our datasets encompassed the sexual interactions
 of 54 females during the years 2002-2011. Paternity data came from 77
 infants born to 54 females throughout the study (Roberts et al. 2014). See
 the associated publication for additional information about the data
 collection methods.
description: # Data from: Female mate choice in wild Kenyan blue monkeys
 (*Cercopithecus mitis*)
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d2547d896](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d2547d896) ## Description of the data and file structure These are two datasets associated with the publication, which provide further information about the data. All data come from a long-term field study of blue monkeys in the Kakamega Forest, western Kenya. The file **Cords_Schembari_pref_data** includes each male-female pair analyzed in the study and was used to examine whether males who were most solicited by a female were more likely to be the father of that female’s offspring. The file **Cords_Schembari_inf_data** includes each mother-infant pair in the study, and was used to evaluate whether a female’s rank or parity influenced the likelihood that her offspring were sired by her preferred male, and whether infants sired by their mother’s preferred male were more likely to survive. Each of these data sets is described in more detail below. **Cords_Schembari_pref_data** shows information about adult female-male pairs (N=178). Each line represents one female-male pair that could have interacted during the period in which the female conceived the infant listed in this line (i.e., the male and female were observed in the same group on at least one day of the female’s 29-day conceptive period). The conceptive period was identified by counting back 176±14 days from the birthdate of the infant (blue monkey gestation length is 176±14 days; Pazol et al. 2002). If multiple males were present in the female's group during a single conceptive period, there are multiple lines (one for each male) with the same female and infant. The dataset includes all known male-female pairs that cohabited during the female’s conceptive period for an infant with known paternity (the infants included in the second dataset). Each line includes the following variables: 1. ***female***: female’s unique ID code 2. ***inf***: infant’s unique ID code 3. ***male***: male’s unique ID code 4. ***res_male***: ID code for resident male of the female’s group at the time of infant conception. A resident male was defined as a male who had been the sole male in the group for at least 7 consecutive observation days. A male lost his status as a resident when he left the group for at least 7 consecutive observation days. Any male who was not the current resident of the group he was in was considered a “non-resident” male for that day, even if he was a former resident or later became a resident of the group. 5. ***res***: a binary variable coded 1 if the male in column “male” was the resident male in the female’s group at the time of conception for this infant or 0 if this male was not the female’s resident male 6. ***unsol_procep_behav***: proportion of unsolicited proceptive behavior that this female directed towards this male during her conceptive period, corrected for male availability. We calculated this value by tallying the number of unsolicited proceptive interactions (puckers and presents; Pazol 2003) that the female had directed toward the male and then dividing by the total number of unsolicited proceptive interactions that the female had directed towards any male while this male was in the group. See Equation 1 in the associated publication. 7. ***dad***: binary variable coded 1 if this male was the infant’s father or 0 if not. Paternity data came from the analysis of microsatellite loci from fecal samples collected from infants, their mothers, and adult males. Males identified as fathers were assigned with 80-95% confidence. Paternity analysis is described in the associated publication, and more detail by Roberts et al. 2014. 8. ***pref***: binary variable coded 1 if this male was the female’s most preferred male, i.e., if he had the highest proportion of unsolicited proceptive behavior) or 0 if not 9. ***fem_str***: dominance rank of the female on a 0-1 scale, with 1 as the highest ranking and 0 as the lowest ranking in a particular group and year. Rank was assessed yearly based on dyadic agonistic interactions between adult females with clear winners and losers (described in more detail in the associated publication; see also Klass et al. 2015). 10. ***fem_par***: binary variable coded 1 if the female was parous before the conception and birth of this infant or 0 otherwise **Cords_Schembari_inf_data** shows information about the mothers and/or infants. Each line represents one mother-infant pair (N=63), and the data set includes all infants with known paternity during the study period. This data set includes the following variables: 1. ***group:*** female’s group 2. ***female***: female’s unique ID code 3. ***inf***: infant’s unique ID code 4. ***inf_conception***: estimated date (YYYY-MM-DD) of the infant’s conception, calculated by counting back 176 days from the birthdate of the infant (blue monkey gestation length is 176±14 days; Pazol et al. 2002) 5. ***inf_surv_1yr***: binary variable coded 1 if the infant survived to at least 1 year, or 0 if the infant died before its first birthday 6. ***fem_str***: rank of the female on a 0-1 scale, with 1 as the highest ranking and 0 as the lowest ranking in a particular group. Rank was assessed yearly based on dyadic agonistic interactions between adult females with clear winners and losers (described in more detail in the associated publication; see also Klass et al. 2015). 7. ***fem_par***: binary variable coded 1 if the female was parous before the conception and birth of this infant or 0 otherwise 8. ***dad***: unique ID code of the assigned father. Paternity data came from the analysis of microsatellite loci from fecal samples collected from infants, their mothers, and adult males. Males identified as fathers were assigned with 80-95% confidence. Paternity analysis is described in the associated publication, and more detail by Roberts et al. 2014. 9. ***res_male***: unique ID code of the resident male of the female’s group at the time of infant conception. A resident male was defined as a male who had been the sole male in the group for at least 7 consecutive observation days. A male lost his status as a resident when he left the group for at least 7 consecutive observation days. Any male who was not the current resident of the group he was in was considered a “non-resident” male for that day, even if he was a former resident or later became a resident of the group. 10. ***pref_male***: unique ID code of this female’s most frequently solicited male during her 29-day conception period for this infant, based on the proportion of unsolicited proceptive behavior. Blank cells indicate that the female did not have a single most preferred male (i.e., she solicited multiple males at equal rates). 11. ***dad_pref***: binary variable coded 1 if this female’s most preferred male was also the father of the infant or 0 if not 12. ***dad_res***: binary variable coded 1 if the father of the infant was also the resident male of this female’s group or 0 otherwise 13. ***res_pref***: binary variable coded1 if this female’s most preferred male was also the resident male of her group or 0 otherwise 14. ***takeover***: binary variable coded 1 if this female’s group was taken over by a new male during the six months before or after the infant’s birth or 0 otherwise 15. ***influx***: binary variable coded 1 if the infant had experienced a multi-male influx situation during its first six months of life or 0 if there was no influx. We defined an influx as a period of at least seven consecutive observation days with multiple and/or novel males in the group. 16. ***res_first_app:*** date (YYYY-MM-DD) that the resident male first appeared as a regular member of the female’s group, with no absences of more than two consecutive observation days. We calculated the number of days between this date and the date of the infant’s conception to determine how long the resident had been in the group. We chose this measure, rather than the number of days since the resident male’s first “official” day as a resident, to more accurately represent females’ familiarity with and prior access to that male, even if he was not yet resident. ### **References** * Klass, K.; Cords, M. Agonism and dominance in female blue monkeys. *Am. J. Primatol.* **2015**, *77*, 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22481 * Pazol, K. Mating in the Kakamega Forest blue monkeys (*Cercopithecus mitis*): does female sexual behavior function to manipulate paternity assessment? *Behaviour* **2003**, *140*, 473–499. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4536040  * Pazol, K.; Carlson, A.A.; Ziegler, T.E. Female reproductive endocrinology in wild blue monkeys: a preliminary assessment and discussion of potential adaptive functions. In *The Guenons: Diversity and Adaptation in African Monkeys*; Glenn, M.E., Cords, M., Eds.; Springer: Boston, United States, 2002; pp 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48417-X_16  * Roberts, S.-J.; Nikitopoulos, E.; Cords, M. Factors affecting low resident male siring success in one-male groups of blue monkeys. *Behav. Ecol*. **2014**, *25*, 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru060 ## Sharing/Access information NA ## Code/Software NA