Whoâs there? Third parties affect social interactions between spider monkey males
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Amor Aline Saldaña Sánchez in
Current site
Google Scholar
Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Search for other papers by Filippo Aureli in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Laura Busia in
Current site
Google Scholar
Psychology Department, Adams State University, Alamosa, CO, USA
Search for other papers by Colleen M. Schaffner in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Spider monkeys provide an intriguing opportunity to examine behavioural flexibility in relation to their social environment given their high degree of fissionâfusion dynamics and the nature of maleâmale relationships. These characteristics allow us to examine how flexibility in social interactions is modulated by the perception of risk and uncertainty related to other group members. We investigated whether maleâmale interactions vary according to partner identity and presence of third parties in wild Geoffroyâs spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi). We used proportion of approaches followed by an embrace, an indicator of risk and uncertainty, or by grooming, an affiliative behaviour. To confirm the monkeysâ perception of risk or uncertainty we used aggression rates and time spent vigilant. We collected data on eight adult spider monkey males: three of them belonged to one clique and the other five to another clique based on distinct patterns of residence. We found higher proportions of approaches followed by embraces and lower proportions of approaches followed by grooming between males of different cliques than between males of the same clique. In addition, we found higher aggression rates between males from different cliques. The proportions of approaches followed by embraces in the five-male clique were higher when the three-male clique was no longer in the group. The five males were more vigilant when the other three males were present in the group, indicating the monkeys perceived higher risk or uncertainty under these circumstances. We found lower proportions of approaches followed by grooming between two males when there was at least one other male in the subgroup than when there were only the two males. Our results provide evidence for behavioural flexibility in the interactions between spider monkey males as an example of how animals can cope with social challenges by adjusting their behaviour.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aplin, L.M., Farine, D.R., Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E.F., Cockburn, A. & Sheldon, B.C. (2013). Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). â Ecol. Lett. 16: 1365-1372. DOI:10.1111/ele.12181.
-
Aureli, F., Di Fiore, A., Murillo-Chacon, E., Kawamura, S. & Schaffner, C.M. (2013). Male philopatry in spider monkeys revisited. â Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 152: 86-95. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22331.
-
Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M., Boesch, C., Bearder, S.K., Call, J., Chapman, C.A., Connor, R., Di Fiore, A., Dunbar, R.I.M., Henzi, S.P., Holekamp, K., Korstjens, A.H., Layton, R., Lee, P., Lehmann, J., Manson, J.H., Ramos-Fernandez, G., Strier, K.B. & van Schaik, C.P. (2008). Fissionâfusion dynamics: new research frameworks. â Curr. Anthropol. 49: 627-654. DOI:10.1086/586708.
-
Aureli, F. & Schaffner, C.M. (2007). Aggression and conflict management at fusion in spider monkeys. â Biol. Lett. 3: 147-149. DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0041.
-
Aureli, F. & Schaffner, C.M. (2008). Social interactions, social relationships and the social system of spider monkeys. â In: Spider monkeys: behavior, ecology and evolution of the genus Ateles (Campbell, C.J., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 236-265.
-
Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M., Asensio, N. & Lusseau, D. (2012). What is a subgroup? How socioecological factors influence interindividual distance. â Behav. Ecol. 23: 1308-1315. DOI:10.1093/beheco/ars122.
-
Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M., Verpooten, J., Slater, K. & Ramos-Fernandez, G. (2006). Raiding parties of male spider monkeys: insights into human warfare? â Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131: 486-497. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.20451.
-
Aureli, F. & Schino, G. (2019). Social complexity from within: how individuals experience the structure and organization of their groups. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 73: 6. DOI:10.1007/s00265-018-2604-5.
-
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2016). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. â R package version 1.1-7. Available online at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
-
Busia, L., Smith-Aguilar, S., Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M. & Ramos-Fernandez, G. (2018). Predation attacks on wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). â Folia Primatol. 89: 341-346. DOI:10.1159/000492055.
-
Busia, L., Schaffner, C.M. & Aureli, F. (2019). Watch out! Insecure relationships affect vigilance in wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 73: 159. DOI:10.1007/s00265-019-2773-x.
-
Campbell, C.J. (2006). Lethal intragroup aggression by adult male spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). â Am. J. Primatol. 68: 1197-1201. DOI:10.1002/ajp.20305.
-
Chapman, C.A. & Rothman, J.M. (2009). Within-species differences in primate social structure: evolution of plasticity and phylogenetic constraints. â Primates. 50: 12-22. DOI:10.1007/s10329-008-0123-0.
-
Colmenares, F., Hofer, H. & East, M.L. (2000). Greeting ceremonies in baboons and hyenas. â In: Natural conflict resolution (Aureli, F. & de Waal, F.B.M., eds). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 94-96.
-
Croft, D.P., James, R. & Krause, J. (2008). Exploring animal social networks. â Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
-
Di Fiore, A. (2002). Predator sensitive foraging in ateline primates. â In: Eat or be eaten: predator sensitive foraging among primates (Miller, L.E., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 242-267.
-
Di Fiore, A.F., Link, A. & Campbell, C.J. (2010). The Atelines: behavior and socioecological diversity in a New World monkey. â In: Primates in perspective (Campbell, C.J., Fuentes, A.F., MacKinnon, K.C., Stumpf, R. & Bearder, S., eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 156-185.
-
Dunbar, R.I.M. (2010). The social role of touch in humans and primates: behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. â Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34: 260-268. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.07.001.
-
Fedigan, L.M. & Baxter, M.J. (1984). Sex differences and social organization in free-ranging spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). â Primates. 25: 279-294. DOI:10.1007/BF02382267.
-
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2011). car: companion to applied regression. Version: 1.1-12. Available online at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car.
-
Gabriel, D.N., Gould, L. & Kelley, E.A. (2014). Seasonal patterns of male affiliation in ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) in diverse habitats across southern Madagascar. â Behaviour 151: 935-961. DOI:10.1163/1568539X-00003130.
-
Gaynor, K.M. & Cords, M. (2012). Antipredator and social monitoring functions of vigilance behaviour in blue monkeys. â Anim. Behav. 84: 531-537. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.003.
-
Goldenberg, S.Z., de Silva, S., Rasmussen, H.B., Douglas-Hamilton, I. & Wittemyer, G. (2014). Controlling for behavioural state reveals social dynamics among male African elephants, Loxodonta africana. â Anim. Behav. 95: 111-119. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.07.002.
-
Henzi, S.P., Lusseau, D., Weingrill, T., Van Schaik, C.P. & Barrett, L. (2009). Cyclicity in the structure of female baboon social networks. â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 1015-1021. DOI:10.1007/s00265-009-0720-y.
-
Kappeler, P.M., Barrett, L., Blumstein, D.T. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2013). Constraints and flexibility in mammalian social behaviour: introduction and synthesis. â Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 368: 1-10. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2012.0337.
-
Kuester, J. & Paul, A. (2000). The use of infants to buffer male aggression. â In: Natural conflict resolution (Aureli, F. & de Waal, F.B.M., eds). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 91-93.
-
Kutsukake, N. (2006). The context and quality of social relationships affect vigilance behaviour in wild chimpanzees. â Ethology 112: 581-591. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01200.x.
-
Kutsukake, N., Suetsugu, N. & Hasegawa, T. (2006). Pattern, distribution, and function of greeting behavior among black-and-white colobus. â Int. J. Primatol. 27: 1271-1291. DOI:10.1007/s10764-006-9072-x.
-
Massen, J.J. & Koski, S.E. (2014). Chimps of a feather sit together: chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality. â Evol. Hum. Behav. 35: 1-8. DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.008.
-
Pannozzo, P.L., Phillips, K.A., Haas, M.E. & Mintz, E.M. (2007). Social monitoring reflects dominance relationships in a small captive group of brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). â Ethology 113: 881-888. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01392.x.
-
Pastor-Nieto, R. (2001). Grooming, kinship, and co-feeding in captive spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). â Zoo Biol. 20: 293-303. DOI:10.1002/zoo.1029.
-
Patriquin, K.J., Leonard, M.L., Broders, H.G. & Garroway, C.J. (2010). Do social networks of female northern long-eared bats vary with reproductive period and age? â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64: 899-913.
-
Ram, S., Venkatachalam, S. & Sinha, A. (2003). Changing social strategies of wild female Bonnet macaques during natural foraging and on provisioning. â Curr. Sci. 84: 780-790. DOI:10.1007/s00265-010-0905-4.
-
Ramos-Fernandez, G., Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M. & Vick, L.G. (2018). EcologÃa, comportamiento y conservación de los monos araña (Ateles geoffroyi): 20 años de estudio en Punta Laguna, México. â In: La primatologÃa en Latinoamérica 2 (Urbani, B., Kowalewski, M., Grasseto Teixeira da Cunha, R., de la Torre, S. & Cortés-Ortiz, L., eds). Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones CientÃficas, Caracas, p. 531-544.
-
Ramos-Fernández, G. (2005). Vocal communication in a fissionâfusion society: do spider monkeys stay in touch with close associates? â Int. J. Primatol. 26: 1077-1092. DOI:10.1007/s10764-005-6459-z.
-
Rebecchini, L., Schaffner, C.M. & Aureli, F. (2011). Risk is a component of social relationships in spider monkeys. â Ethology 117: 691-699.
-
Riley, E.P., Sagnotti, C., Carosi, M. & Oka, N.P. (2014). Socially tolerant relationships among wild male moor macaques (Macaca maura). â Behaviour 151: 1021-1044. DOI:10.1163/1568539X-00003182.
-
Schaffner, C.M. & Aureli, F. (2005). Embraces and grooming in captive spider monkeys. â Int. J. Primatol. 26: 1093-1106. DOI:10.1007/s10764-005-6460-6.
-
Schaffner, C.M., Rebecchini, L., Ramos-Fernandez, G., Vick, L.G. & Aureli, F. (2012a). Spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi yucatenensis) cope with the negative consequences of hurricanes through changes in diet, activity budget, and fissionâfusion dynamics. â Int. J. Primatol. 33: 922-936. DOI:10.1007/s10764-012-9621-4.
-
Schaffner, C.M., Slater, K.Y. & Aureli, F. (2012b). Age related variation in maleâmale relationships in wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis). â Primates 5: 49-56. DOI:10.1007/s10329-011-0271-5.
-
Shimooka, Y., Campbell, C.J., Di Fiore, A., Felton, A.M., Izawa, K., Link, A., Wallace, R.B. (... & 2008). Demography and group composition of Ateles. â In: Spider monkeys: behavior, ecology and evolution of the genus Ateles (Campbell, C.J., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 329-350.
-
Silk, J.B. (2007). The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. â Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 362: 539-559. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2006.1994.
-
Sinha, A. (2005). Not in their genes: phenotypic flexibility, behavioural traditions and cultural evolution in wild Bonnet macaques. â J. Biosci. 30: 51-64. DOI:10.1007/BF02705150.
-
Slater, K.Y., Schaffner, C.M. & Aureli, F. (2007). Embraces for infant handling in spider monkeys: evidence for a biological market? â Anim. Behav. 74: 455-461. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.026.
-
Slater, K.Y., Schaffner, C.M. & Aureli, F. (2009). Sex differences in the social behavior of wild spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis). â Am. J. Primatol. 71: 21-29. DOI:10.1002/ajp.20618.
-
Smith, J.E., Estrada, J.R., Richards, H.R., Dawes, S.E., Mitsos, K. & Holekamp, K.E. (2015). Collective movements, leadership and consensus costs at reunions in spotted hyaenas. â Anim. Behav. 105: 187-200. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.023.
-
Smith, J.E., Memenis, S.K. & Holekamp, K.E. (2007). Rank-related partner choice in the fissionâfusion society of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61: 753-765. DOI:10.1007/s00265-006-0305-y.
-
Strier, K.B. (2017). What does variation in primate behavior mean? â Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 162: 4-14. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.23143.
-
Symington, M.M. (1990). Fissionâfusion social organization in Ateles and Pan. â Int. J. Primatol. 11: 47-61. DOI:10.1007/BF02193695.
-
Treves, A. (2000). Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. â Anim. Behav. 60: 711-722. DOI:10.1006/anbe.2000.1528.
-
Valero, A., Schaffner, C.M., Vick, L.G., Aureli, F. & Ramos-Fernandez, G. (2006). Intragroup lethal aggression in wild spider monkeys. â Am. J. Primatol. 68: 732-737. DOI:10.1002/ajp.20263.
-
van Schaik, C.P., van Noordwijk, M.A., Warsono, B. & Sutriono, E. (1983). Party size and early detection of predators. â Primates 24: 211-221. DOI:10.1007/BF02381083.
-
Verspeek, J., Staes, N., van Leeuwen, E.J., Eens, M. & Stevens, J.M. (2019). Bonobo personality predicts friendship. â Sci. Rep. 9: 1-9. DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-55884-3.
-
Wallace, R.B. (2008). Towing the party line: territoriality, risky boundaries and male group size in spider monkey fissionâfusion societies. â Am. J. Primatol. 70: 271-281. DOI:10.1002/ajp.20484.
-
Watts, D.P. (1998). A preliminary study of selective visual attention in female mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei). â Primates 39: 71-78. DOI:10.1007/BF02557744.
-
West-Eberhard, M.J. (1989). Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. â Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst 20: 249-278. DOI:10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001341.
-
Whiten, A. & van Schaik, C.P. (2007). The evolution of animal âculturesâ and social intelligence. â Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 362: 603-620. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2006.1998.
-
Whitham, J.C. & Maestripieri, D. (2003). Primate rituals: the function of greetings between male Guinea baboons. â Ethology 109: 847-859. DOI:10.1046/j.0179-1613.2003.00922.x.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 942 | 151 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 106 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 134 | 2 | 0 |
Whoâs there? Third parties affect social interactions between spider monkey males
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Amor Aline Saldaña Sánchez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Search for other papers by Filippo Aureli in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Laura Busia in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Psychology Department, Adams State University, Alamosa, CO, USA
Search for other papers by Colleen M. Schaffner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Spider monkeys provide an intriguing opportunity to examine behavioural flexibility in relation to their social environment given their high degree of fissionâfusion dynamics and the nature of maleâmale relationships. These characteristics allow us to examine how flexibility in social interactions is modulated by the perception of risk and uncertainty related to other group members. We investigated whether maleâmale interactions vary according to partner identity and presence of third parties in wild Geoffroyâs spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi). We used proportion of approaches followed by an embrace, an indicator of risk and uncertainty, or by grooming, an affiliative behaviour. To confirm the monkeysâ perception of risk or uncertainty we used aggression rates and time spent vigilant. We collected data on eight adult spider monkey males: three of them belonged to one clique and the other five to another clique based on distinct patterns of residence. We found higher proportions of approaches followed by embraces and lower proportions of approaches followed by grooming between males of different cliques than between males of the same clique. In addition, we found higher aggression rates between males from different cliques. The proportions of approaches followed by embraces in the five-male clique were higher when the three-male clique was no longer in the group. The five males were more vigilant when the other three males were present in the group, indicating the monkeys perceived higher risk or uncertainty under these circumstances. We found lower proportions of approaches followed by grooming between two males when there was at least one other male in the subgroup than when there were only the two males. Our results provide evidence for behavioural flexibility in the interactions between spider monkey males as an example of how animals can cope with social challenges by adjusting their behaviour.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 942 | 151 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 106 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 134 | 2 | 0 |
