Cues to kinship and close relatedness during infancy in white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus

Abstract

The ability to recognize kin has important impacts on fitness because it can allow for kinbiased affiliative behaviors and for avoidance of mating with close kin. While the presence and effects of kin biases have been widely studied, less is known about the process by which animals recognize close kin. Here we investigate potential cues that white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus) may use to detect half-siblings and closer kin. We focus on the first year of life in a sample of 130 infant (n=65 infant females) wild capuchins from the Lomas Barbudal population in Costa Rica. We show that (1) infant relatedness to juvenile and adult males at the level of half-sibling and higher can be predicted by male alpha status, spatial proximity, and age proximity, and that (2) infant relatedness to juvenile and adult females at the level of half-sibling or higher can be predicted by spatial proximity (but not age proximity). Furthermore, (1) the identities of infants' fathers can also be predicted by male alpha status and the spatial proximity between infants and adult males, and (2) age proximity (but not spatial proximity) is predictive of paternal sibship. These results suggest that infant capuchins have access to multiple cues to close relatedness and paternal kinship, though whether infants use these cues later in life remains to be explored in future research.Keywords: kin recognition, age proximity, early social familiarity, male dominance, The ability to recognize kin has many adaptive benefits. It can help organisms increase their inclusive fitness by allowing them to allot a disproportionate amount of affiliative behaviors and coalitionary support toward individuals with which they share a larger proportion of their genes (Hamilton, 1964). Furthermore, by allowing individuals to recognize kin and discriminate against them in a mating context, kin recognition mechanisms can facilitate avoidance of the deleterious effects of close inbreeding (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1987).We define kin recognition as the ability to identify and distinguish kin from non-kin, or more closely related kin from more distant kin, regardless of the mechanism or mechanisms through which it is accomplished, and regardless of whether it actually leads to differential treatment of individuals (i.e. kin discrimination). In this sense, we take on a broad as opposed to narrow definition of kin recognition (see Penn & Frommen, 2010). We consider the related term kin bias to be the differential treatment of kin versus non-kin (or close kin from distant kin), though not exclusively as the result of kin recognition.Kin recognition has been documented in a wide array of animal taxa, including, to name only a few: Artic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) (Winberg & Olsén, 1992;Olsén & Winberg, 1996), spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus bombifrons) (Pfennig et al., 1993), Golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) (Mateo & Johnston, 2000), and Belding's ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi) and Arctic ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryii) (Holmes & S...

Infant mortality in white‐faced capuchins: The impact of alpha male replacements

“…All coresident male white‐faced capuchins mate with group females (Fedigan & Jack, ), and subordinate males do sire some offspring (Wikberg et al, ). Extragroup copulations, in contrast, are very rare (Godoy, Vigilant, & Perry, ), and extragroup paternity has not been found in our study population (Wikberg et al, ). In the only documented case from the nearby Lomas Barbudal population of this same species, the sire was a familiar former coresident from the female's natal group (Godoy et al, ).…”

Evidence for paternal kin bias in the social affiliation of adult female blue monkeys

“…Unfortunately, published results are still too few to conduct a rigorous comparative analysis to evaluate the importance of factors that could explain the apparent variation across species. Those factors might include the value of different cues in signaling relatedness of paternal half‐siblings (e.g., Godoy, Vigilant, & Perry, ), as well as the degree of paternity concentration and breeding seasonality that are likely to underlie variation in the value of such cues. In addition, there could be cognitive or perceptual differences across species or clades.…”

A case for environmental statistics of early-life effects

“…Just as field datasets can provide evidence on temporal autocorrelation of environmental parameters, they can be used to examine the cues available to developing organisms. Godoy et al [103] used rich observational data from white-faced capuchins to explore the extent to which developing individuals might have access to valid cues of relatedness. They found that the combination of spatial proximity and high status was highly informative about which individuals were their fathers; and spatial proximity and age similarity were strong cues of patrilineal sibship.…”