Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual

Stander, Philip

doi:10.1007/bf00170175

Cited by 363 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

263

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Before the availability of GPS telemetry, lion kills had to be located through field searches alone. Studies of lion kills were easier to do in open habitats such as the Serengeti and Etosha (Scheel & Packer 1991;Stander 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords:Bayesian statistics Carnegie Airborne Observatory GPS telemetry LiDAR lion Panthera leo predatoreprey interaction vegetation structure Emerging evidence suggests that male lions are not dependent on female's hunting skills but are in fact successful hunters. But difficulty locating kills and objectively characterizing landscapes has complicated the comparison of male and female lion hunting strategies. We used airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) measurements of vegetation structure in Kruger National Park, combined with global positioning system (GPS) telemetry data on lion, Panthera leo, kills to quantify lines-of-sight where lion kills occurred compared with areas where lions rested, while controlling for time of day. We found significant differences in use of vegetation structure by male and female lions during hunts. While male lions killed in landscapes with much shorter linesof-sight (16.2 m) than those in which they rested, there were no significant differences for female lions. These results were consistent across sizes of prey species. The influence of vegetation structure in shaping predatoreprey interactions is often hypothe-sized, but quantitative evidence has been scarce. Although our sample sizes were limited, our results provide a mechanism, ambush hunting versus social hunting in the open, to explain why hunting success of male lions might equal that of females. This study serves as a case study for more complete studies with larger samples sizes and illustrates how LiDAR and GPS telemetry can be used to provide new insight into lion hunting behaviour.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although male lions were generally thought to be less accomplished hunters than females (Scheel & Packer 1991;Stander 1992), recent research suggests that males successfully kill as frequently as females (Funston et al 2001). Funston et al (2001) found that prey species largely explained differences between male and female hunting behaviour.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social dimensions can be particularly pronounced when pairs or larger groups coordinate actions for shared outcomes. Real-world examples include group hunting (e.g., in lions Panthera leo, Scheel and Packer, 1991;Stander, 1992; in chimpanzees Pan troglodytes, Boesch and Boesch, 1989; in bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus, Connor, 2000) and intergroup aggression (e.g., in lions: Heinsohn and Packer, 1995;in chimpanzees: Boehm, 1992). In humans, Hutchins (1995) analyzed team navigation as typical of groups working together.…”

Section: Cooperation As Social Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence of sensitivity to the fact of cooperating was obtained with capuchin monkeys Cebus apella in which food sharing was more likely after coordinating actions than after behaving individually (de Waal and Berger, 2000). Moreover, coordinating actions can sometimes be based on a clear division-of-labor based on different and complementary roles (Boehm, 1992;Boesch and Boesch, 1989;Connor, 2000;Heinsohn and Packer, 1995;Stander, 1992). As a result, individuals may engage in behavior when cooperating that would be ineffectual if performed alone.…”

Section: Cooperation As Social Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Schuster

2004

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation is usually explained from an economic perspective focused mainly on the tangible outcomes received by individuals that are also dependent on the behavior of others, with little reference to the actual behaviors used when cooperating. The potential consequences of social dimensions associated with cooperative behaviors are minimized in Skinnerian and game-theory models by means of anonymous subjects that behave individually while physically isolated in separate chambers. When cooperation and non-cooperation occur in the real world, however, they are often associated not only with different outcomes but also with different behaviors. Unlike non-cooperation, cooperative behaviors are usually intrinsically social, influenced by the presence and behaviors of familiar partners. Research is described that addresses whether the social dimensions of cooperative actions go beyond mere description of behaviors to also explain why cooperation occurs. One way to resolve the relative importance of economic and social factors for explanations of cooperation is to measure choice between the options of cooperation and non-cooperation. The economic perspective, linked to models derived from game theory, frames the question as a choice determined by differences in tangible outcomes such as food or money that, in evolutionary terms, are surrogates for gains in fitness. From a behavioral perspective, the choice between cooperation and non-cooperation is also determined by social dimensions associated only with cooperation. The influence of social cooperation on preference was examined by means of two rectangular chambers interconnected by a T-maze. In one chamber, pairs of laboratory rats were reinforced with saccharine solution for coordinating back-and-forth shuttling; in the second chamber, a single animal was reinforced for back-and-forth shuttling performed in isolation. With outcomes equalized between the two options, cooperation was preferred by the majority of subjects. Moreover, variation in the relative rate of reinforcement during cooperation was not a strong predictor of choice whereas the level of intra-pair coordination was positively related to preference. Implications of this result are discussed for both method and theory, including the hypothesis that the preference is influenced by intrinsic reinforcements evoked by cooperating. The consequences for evolutionary fitness would then arise not only from tangible outcomes but from the relationships that develop when cooperating even when immediate and tangible pay-offs are absent, insufficient or sub-optimal. The impact of cooperative relationships on fitness may therefore not occur immediately but in the future, and perhaps in another context, when they influence outcomes that have a significant impact on survival and reproduction.

show abstract

Comparative Cognition and Neuroscience

Snowdon¹,

Cronin²

2009

Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual

Cited by 363 publications

References 25 publications

Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna

Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna

Why cooperate?An economic perspective is not enough

Comparative Cognition and Neuroscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About