{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027777777777777776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025067750677506776, 'mean_word_length': 4.955645161290323, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Life history traits and parental care in Lepilemur ruficaudatus

In this study we investigated the importance of biparental care for the evolution and/or maintenance of pair‐living in red‐tailed sportive lemurs (Lepilemur ruficaudatus), a nocturnal folivorous lemur. Between 2000 and 2005, we collected data on life history traits from a total of 14 radio‐collared pairs of adults and their offspring in Kirindy forest, western Madagascar. Predation rate varied between years with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 40% per year. Patterns of parental care were quantified during simultaneous focal observations of both pair‐partners in 2003 and 2004. Mating activity was limited to the months of May and June, as indicated by conspicuous changes of vulval morphology and male mate guarding behavior. After a gestation length of about 5 months, which is much longer than expected for a lemur of this body mass, single infants were born in November. Lactation lasted for about 50 days. Apart from lactation, females provided infant care by warming, grooming and transporting infants orally. Infants were parked in dense vegetation while females foraged. Males were seen only rarely in proximity to infants and we found no evidence for direct infant care provided by social fathers. We conclude that the necessity of direct infant care cannot explain the evolution and/or maintenance of pair‐living in Lepilemur ruficaudatus. Am. J. Primatol. 70:2–11, 2008. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.