Long‐Term Field Studies—
            <scp>A</scp>
            mericas

Strier, Karen B.

doi:10.1002/9781119179313.wbprim0430

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other primatological traditions, such as that of Latin American primatology, were less concerned with direct behavioral comparisons between nonhuman and human primates, focusing instead on broader ecological questions and on the evidence of intraspecific behavioral variation that the anthropocentric primatological perspectives tended to ignore (Strier, ). These perspectives began to shift, however.…”

Section: The Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate social behavior

Strier

2018

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funding informationVilas Research Professorship, University of Wisconsin-Madison. K E Y W O R D S behavioral flexibility, field primatology, primate behavioral ecology, primate conservation, social evolution 1 | I N TR ODU C TI ON Much has changed in our understanding of primate social behavior since the pioneering naturalistic field study conducted by Clarence Ray Carpenter (1934) on the behavior and social relations of mantled howler monkeys in Panama. These changes reflect a combination of interacting factors, including: (i) shifts in disciplinary perspectives; (ii) advances in theory, methods, and analytical (including computational) power; and (iii) a dramatic increase in the diversity of primate taxa that have been studied across space and over time. Together, these changes have broadened our comparative perspectives about primates, and challenged basic longstanding concepts such as those about the stability of group size and composition, and the role of kinship in structuring primate social relationships. They have also stimulated new considerations of behavioral adaptation, variation, and flexibility (Strier, 2017a). After a remarkable expansion in primate behavioral and ecological studies over the past half-century, we have reached an exciting new threshold of understanding about the range of flexible behavioral patterns that primates exhibit in response to local ecological and demographic conditions. This understanding is poised to lead to the development of new dynamic comparative models that encompass both interspecific and intraspecific variation in primate behavioral ecology, and thus will provide insights into primate social evolution and adaptive potential (Strier, 2017b). At the same time, however, we are facing an impending crisis. Some 60% of primate taxa are already threatened with extinction, and 75% of primate populations are experiencing dangerous declines (Estrada et al., 2017). Accelerating anthropogenic pressures from habitat loss and hunting, coupled with irreversible climate change, extreme weather events, and the spread of zoonotic diseases, are now escalating the risks to primates at local, regional, and global scales. Urgent concerns about the long-term prospects for the survival of primates cast a formidable shadow over what would otherwise be an unguarded optimism about the future of the field.The realities of anthropogenic impacts on primate populations and their habitats, though cause for alarm, have nonetheless led to new insights into the inconsistencies between predictions about behavioral adaptations derived from socioecological theory and the actual behavior patterns we observe (Janson, 2000;Strier, 2003aStrier, , 2003bThierry, 2008;Koenig & Borries, 2009). Indeed, a major challenge in contemporary primate behavioral ecology revolves around identifying whether the behavior patterns that presumably evolved under very different ecological and demographic conditions in the past still continue to be adaptive today. Increasing sensitivities to the altered conditions under which ...

show abstract

Section: The Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%