Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Comparison of the reproductive success in Tasmanian devils between two types of housing facilities over a five year period

From: The effects of group versus intensive housing on the retention of genetic diversity in insurance populations

Facility Year Sample size(m:f) Polygynya Polyandryb Male reproductive skewc Female reproductive skewd % males reproduced mean (±SD)e % females reproduced mean (±SD)e Litter size mean (±SD)f
Group 2011 10:11 0.00 0.00 60.00 63.64 25.00 (5.77) 25.00 (5.77) 2.50 (0.58)
2012 24:23 40.00 7.70 58.33 43.48 10.00 (4.18) 7.69 (3.43) 2.77 (1.24)
2013 26:26 8.33 23.08 53.85 50.00 8.33 (4.76) 7.70 (3.50) 2.23 (1.01)
2014 23:23 10.00 33.33 56.52 59.09 10.00 (4.74) 11.11 (4.76) 2.33 (1.00)
2015 21:22 37.50 10.00 61.90 50.00 12.50 (4.63) 9.10 (3.07) 3.10 (1.04)
Average   20.8:21 19.17 14.82 58.12 53.24 13.17 12.12 2.59
Intensive 2011 18:17 20.00 NA 44.44 29.41 10.00 (4.92) 8.33 (3.21) 2.58 (0.99)
2012 17:14 0.00 NA 35.29 21.43 9.09 (3.46) 9.09 (3.46) 2.45 (0.93)
2013 16:15 16.67 NA 62.50 53.33 16.67 (12.11) 14.29 (5.35) 2.86 (1.07)
2014g 10:8 0.00 NA 50.00 37.50 20.00 (9.31) 20.00 (9.31) 2.80 (1.30)
2015g 13:15 0.00 NA 27.27 40.00 12.50 (4.63) 11.11 (4.17) 2.67 (1.00)
Average   14.8:13.8 7.33 NA 43.9 36.33 13.65 12.56 2.67
  1. aPercentage of males that had more than one female mate
  2. bPercentage of females that had more than one male mate
  3. cPercentage of males that failed to reproduce from the total number of males with breeding recommendations
  4. dPercentage of females that failed to reproduce from the total number of females with breeding recommendations
  5. eAverage individual reproductive contribution (number of joeys produced as a proportion of the total number of joeys produced in that yearly cohort)
  6. fAverage litter size value obtained only from females that reproduced during this study
  7. gIn these two years, breeding recommendations were preferentially giving to group housing facilities due to capacity restrictions in the intensive facilities in the insurance population ([52])
  8. Group housing facilities provide an opportunity for mate choice, and intensive housing facilities require forced monogamy