Correlations of food distribution and patch size with agonistic interactions in female vervets ( Chlorocebus aethiops ) and patas monkeys ( Erythrocebus patas ) living in simple habitats

Pruetz, Jill D.; Isbell, Lynne A.

doi:10.1007/s002650000272

Cited by 121 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Examining areas of agreement can be useful (e.g. Whitten, 1983;Phillips, 1995;Barton et al, 1996;Saito, 1996;Sterck & Steenbeek, 1997;Isbell & Pruetz, 1998;Pruetz & Isbell, 2000; see also below). However, if the goal is to determine which model more accurately re ects nature, tests must address key differences among these models, not their similarities.…”

Section: Three Basic Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These qualities of foods are rarely measured in the eld, and when they are, quantitative measures are extremely scale-dependent (e.g. Leighton & Leighton, 1982;Shopland, 1987;Whitten, 1988;Mitchell et al, 1991;Barton, 1993;Chapman et al, 1995;Barton et al, 1996;Sterck & Steenbeek, 1997;Koenig, 2000;Pruetz & Isbell, 2000). The models make arguments about patch sizes across a wide range of spatial scales, but it is not clear what scale is appropriate for different kinds of competition.…”

Section: Food Distributio N and Dominance Hierarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The models make arguments about patch sizes across a wide range of spatial scales, but it is not clear what scale is appropriate for different kinds of competition. Recognizing this, Isbell and colleagues have attempted to examine more speci cally the operational aspects of food distributio n as they affect competition (Isbell & Pruetz, 1998;Isbell et al, 1998;Pruetz & Isbell, 2000;Mathy & Isbell, 2001). It appears that the patchiness of foods per se is not what matters.…”

Section: Food Distributio N and Dominance Hierarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ecological models of female social relationships in primates: similarities, disparities, and some directions for future clarity

Isbell

Young²

2002

Behav

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummarySeveral models have been proposed to explain the variation that exists in female social relationships among diurnal primate species. While there are similarities among them, notably in the ecological cause of agonistic relationships among females within groups, their differences are most useful in testing which of the models most accurately re ects the real world. These include the question of whether competition is an inevitable cost of living in groups and whether female philopatry is a consequence of the costs of dispersal or the bene ts of forming coalitions with female kin. We discuss in detail these similarities and differences, and attempt to integrate the models' divergent views into some guidelines for use in testing between models that will lead to the next generation of models.

show abstract

Section: Three Basic Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Food Distributio N and Dominance Hierarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Food Distributio N and Dominance Hierarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological models of female social relationships in primates: similarities, disparities, and some directions for future clarity

Isbell

Young²

2002

Behav

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In natural settings, the degree of competition for spatially concentrated food resources (as was the case in our social interference treatment) is assumed to be a function of the value of the contested food item to an individual (Pruetz and Isbell, 2000). Although LE heifers exhibited detectably lower avoidance for locoweed than their LA counterparts, they did not show a strong preference (indices .. 1) for this food item, and may have lacked motivation to preclude access of LA heifers to locoweed bowls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does feeding area restriction inhibit social learning of toxic weed ingestion in cattle?

Jackson

Cibils

Gould

et al. 2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social learning from peers can trigger herd-wide intoxication with white locoweed ( Oxytropis sericea), an alkaloid-synthesizing herbaceous legume that grows on rangelands of western North America. We conducted an experiment to test the hypothesis that restriction of the area allocated to animals to feed in would inhibit social facilitation of locoweed ingestion in yearling heifers. Eight heifers that avoided white locoweed (LA) and eight heifers that readily consumed it (LE) were selected from a pool of 40 cross-bred heifers and were randomly assigned to the social facilitation or social interference treatment groups. We conducted 200 10-min feeding trials in three 5-day phases (pre-treatment, treatment, post-treatment) during which animals were presented with a set of bowls arrayed in a test arena, some of which contained ground wheat straw and others contained air-dried ground white locoweed. During the pre-treatment (days 1 to 5) and the post-treatment phases (days 11 to 15) non-social trials were conducted in which the feeding behavior of individual animals was investigated in an 80 m 2 arena containing 12 feeding bowls. During the treatment phase (days 6 to 10) social learning trials were conducted in which LA 1 LE pairs from the social interference group were exposed to 12 bowls of food distributed in an 80 m 2 arena intended to induce social interference, and LA 1 LE pairs from the social facilitation group were exposed to 36 bowls of food distributed in a 240 m 2 arena intended to permit social facilitation. During pre-treatment phase, LA heifers consumed detectably less locoweed and wheat straw and exhibited lower preference for locoweed than LE ( P < 0.05) although wheat straw preference of LA and LE was similar. During social learning trials (treatment phase), LA in the social interference group visited similar number of locoweed bowls (mean 6 s.e.m.: 0.2 6 0.12) as they had during non-social learning (0.2 6 0.20). Conversely, LA heifers in the social facilitation group visited detectably more locoweed bowls during social learning trials (1.6 6 0.46) compared with the pre-treatment phase (0.2 6 0.16). Correlation between daily number of locoweed bowls visited by LA and LE during social learning trials was detected in the social facilitation (r 5 0.70; P , 0.01), but not in the social interference group (r 5 0.15; P 5 0.52). During testing trials (post-treatment phase), locoweed and wheat straw intake and preference of LA and LE in both treatment groups was similar. Manipulation of the feeding environment delayed, but did not inhibit social learning of toxic weed ingestion in this study.

show abstract

“…Social structure in animal groups can be affected by many factors, such as kinship (Furuichi, 1984;Matsumura & Okamoto, 1997;Silk, 2002), age classes (de Waal & Luttrell, 1986), resource holding potential (Barrett & Henzi, 2006), and resource availability (Henzi et al, 2009). A number of studies have also investigated the relationship between ecological factors and social behavior (Emlen & Oring, 1977;Terborgh, 1986;Sterck et al, 1997;Kappeler & Van Schaik, 2002) and shown that social relationships may change in different seasons (Shimooka, 2003) and habitats (Pruetz & Isbell, 2000). However, compared to numerous studies on the effects of seasonal ecological factors on animal behavior (Dunbar, , 1997), and the development of appropriate measures for spatial proximity can express qualitative variation and assess the social structures (Cairns & Schwager, 1987;Whitehead, 1995;Ramos-Fernández et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximity association in polygynous western black crested gibbons ( Nomascus concolor jingdongensis ): network structure and seasonality

Guo¹,

Huang²,

Ning³

et al. 2013

Zoological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We investigated the structure and seasonality of the proximity network in a group of polygynous western black crested gibbons (Nomascus concolor) using social network analysis. The spatial proximity changed seasonally and was affected by temperature and rainfall. Preferred proximity association was not distributed randomly among individuals. Kinship was one explanation for the social structure, as offspring preferred to maintain close proximity with their mothers. The proximity of infants to mothers decreased with age, and independent offspring had lower proximity to mothers than dependent ones. We found that the adult male had different proximity relationships with two different adult females. The frequency of proximity between the male and the infant-carrying female was significantly higher than that between the male and the female who had immigrated carrying one offspring of uncertain paternity into the group. Infanticide avoidance and/or predation protection for dependent infants might explain the proximity relationship differences. Temperature influenced group proximity association, with individual proximity increasing in the cold months and decreasing in the hot months. Group proximity decreased in months with higher anthropogenic disturbance.Keywords: Proximity; Nomascus concolor; Polygynous; Social network Spatial distance between individuals exists in all group living animals; however, variances occur among different species and among individuals within the same group. It is reported that spatial distance among individuals is correlated with social relationships (Sade, 1965(Sade, , 1972 and social organization (Kummer, 1968); therefore spatial proximity between group members is important for studying social structure. Early research reported on a correlation between inter-individual distance and social relationship in Macaca mulatta (Sade, 1965), with further studies using spatial data to represent social structure in different primates (e.g. Symphalangus syndactylus: Chivers, 1971; Papio cynocephalus and Saimiri sciureus: Fairbanks, 1976). In recent years, spatial distance has also been used in species with different social structures, such as multi-male-multifemale groups (e.g. Social structure in animal groups can be affected by many factors, such as kinship (Furuichi, 1984;Matsumura & Okamoto, 1997;Silk, 2002), age classes (de Waal & Luttrell, 1986), resource holding potential (Barrett & Henzi, 2006), and resource availability (Henzi et al, 2009). A number of studies have also investigated the relationship between ecological factors and social behavior (Emlen & Oring, 1977;Terborgh, 1986;Sterck et al, 1997;Kappeler & Van Schaik, 2002) and shown that social relationships may change in different seasons (Shimooka, 2003) and habitats (Pruetz & Isbell, 2000). However, compared to numerous studies on the effects of seasonal ecological factors on animal behavior (Dunbar, , 1997), and the development of appropriate measures for spatial proximity can express qualitative variation and assess the...

show abstract

Correlations of food distribution and patch size with agonistic interactions in female vervets ( Chlorocebus aethiops ) and patas monkeys ( Erythrocebus patas ) living in simple habitats

Cited by 121 publications

References 60 publications

Ecological models of female social relationships in primates: similarities, disparities, and some directions for future clarity

Ecological models of female social relationships in primates: similarities, disparities, and some directions for future clarity

Does feeding area restriction inhibit social learning of toxic weed ingestion in cattle?

Proximity association in polygynous western black crested gibbons ( Nomascus concolor jingdongensis ): network structure and seasonality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About