ライフサイエンスコーパス: monogamy

1 nt for women and men, respectively (assuming monogamy).

2 xplain the coexistence of gregariousness and monogamy.

3 n lower than expected under random mating or monogamy.

4 ve been unable to resolve the root causes of monogamy.

5 a consequence rather than a cause of social monogamy.

6 Concordance was not associated with monogamy.

7 Conflict over remating can also generate monogamy.

8 regulating social behaviors associated with monogamy.

9 Avpr1a locus contributes to the evolution of monogamy.

10 ive strategy of A. afarensis was principally monogamy.

11 males have access to numerous males, sustain monogamy?

12 ility of a shift to social monogamy, whereas monogamy allows the secondary adoption of paternal care

13 y masculinisation of the transcriptome under monogamy, although this depends on tissue and sex.

14 proposed to explain the evolution of social monogamy among mammals: as a male mate-guarding strategy

15 ork to test for correlated evolution between monogamy and a range of traits to evaluate the competing

16 ested hypotheses related to the evolution of monogamy and affiliation.

17 dence of correlated evolution between social monogamy and both female ranging patterns and biparental

18 n a simple contrast between resource defence monogamy and female defence polygyny.

19 nsignis), we modeled the interaction between monogamy and female life history.

20 Biparental care facilitates both social monogamy and genetic monogamy; frogs that work together

21 Monogamy and high paternal investment were associated wi

22 The evolution of monogamy and paternal care in humans is often argued to

23 The results suggest monogamy and paternal investment can alter the evolution

24 of these aspects of maternal life history to monogamy and paternal investment in offspring is not wel

25 age range and to investigate the effects of monogamy and relationship duration on incidence.

26 We also evaluated the effect of monogamy and relationship duration on transmission incid

27 curacy and assume unrealistic assumptions of monogamy and synchronized generations.

28 tes for males are higher, fitness payoffs to monogamy and the maintenance of a single partner can be

29 opulations characterized by socially imposed monogamy, and it contains a complete distribution of sur

30 as sharing food beyond the immediate family, monogamy, and other forms of reproductive leveling.

31 urred during periods of sexual abstinence or monogamy, and were strongly associated with cumulative l

32 that modern transitions to socially imposed monogamy are driven by cultural group selection.

33 than paternal care, drives the evolution of monogamy, as it secures a partner and ensures paternity

34 ed in the behavioral differences relevant to monogamy, as oxytocin and vasopressin influence pair-bon

35 other animal phylads; (ii) the prevalence of monogamy at the time of evolutionary origin; and (iii) t

36 lleviated by religion and culturally imposed monogamy, both of which also find parallels among social

37 fects are even larger when the assumption of monogamy can be relaxed, but are moderated by other beha

38 The evolution of social monogamy does not appear to have been associated with a

39 So how did monogamy first evolve?

40 facilitates both social monogamy and genetic monogamy; frogs that work together to raise their offspr

41 Social monogamy has evolved in nonhuman mammals where breeding

42 Primates are unusual among mammals because monogamy has evolved independently in all of the major c

43 The evolution of social monogamy has intrigued biologists for over a century.

44 nt to the next generation, the constraint of monogamy has no impact on the qualities of the final pop

45 ionship between microsatellite structure and monogamy in 21 vole species.

46 The origin of social monogamy in primates is best explained by long lactation

47 ght provide a mechanism for the evolution of monogamy in voles.

48 control of several behaviors associated with monogamy, including pair bonding, paternal care and mate

49 Behaviors associated with monogamy, including pair-bond formation, are facilitated

50 Queen monogamy is ancestral among bees, ants, and wasps (Order

51 s is of solitary individuals and that social monogamy is derived almost exclusively from this social

52 ifficulties associated with deciding whether monogamy is enforced by one sex or the other.

53 compelling explanation for the appearance of monogamy is male infanticide.

54 Monogamy is the dominant pattern everywhere, but having

55 by alternative benefits associated with male monogamy (monogyny).

56 s, ranging from high promiscuity to absolute monogamy of domain surface employed, with both multiple

57 le-biased genes, and experimentally imposing monogamy on Drosophila melanogaster has led to a relativ

58 oobscura, to 150 generations of experimental monogamy or elevated polyandry.

59 uch as sedentism, the shift from polygyny to monogamy or the increase of patrilocality.

60 Although common in birds, social monogamy, or pair-living, is rare among mammals because

61 ing of the neurobiological basis not only of monogamy, social attachment and nurturing behaviors but

62 Regardless of monogamy status or relationship duration, there was a si

63 hese results provide the first evidence that monogamy was critical in the evolution of eusociality, s

64 f between search and survival, combined with monogamy when females were searching.

65 creases the probability of a shift to social monogamy, whereas monogamy allows the secondary adoption

66 onsiderable importance for studies of social monogamy, which only appears in a small subset of primat

67 patterns evolved decreased expression under monogamy, while genes with female-biased expression evol

68 costs and benefits to females of polyandry, monogamy with a single copulation, and monogamy with rep

69 ndry, monogamy with a single copulation, and monogamy with repeat copulations.

70 . maniculatus bairdii) to social and genetic monogamy with substantial paternal investment (P. califo