| Home | << 1 >> |
|
Stevens, J., Vervaecke, H., De Vries, H., & Van Elsacker, L. (2006). Social structures in Pan paniscus: testing the female bonding hypothesis. Primates, 47(3), 210–217.
Abstract: Abstract Based on previous research in captivity, bonobos, Pan paniscus, have been called a female-bonded species. However, genetic and behavioural data indicate that wild females migrate. Bonding between these unrelated females would then be in contradiction with socio-ecological models. It has been argued that female bonding has been overemphasized in captive bonobos. We examine patterns of proximity, grooming and support behaviour in six well established captive groups of bonobos. We find that female bonding was not a typical characteristic of all captive bonobo groups. In only two groups there was a trend for females to prefer proximity with other females over association with males. We found no evidence that following or grooming between females was more frequent than between males and unrelated females or between males. Only in coalitions, females supported each other more than male-female or male-male dyads. We also investigated five mother-son pairs. Grooming was more frequent among mothers and sons than in any other dyad, but sons did not groom their mothers more than males groomed unrelated females. Mothers groomed their sons, or provided more support to them than females groomed or supported unrelated males. Thus, while bonds between females were clearly present, intersexual relations between males and either unrelated females or their mothers are of more, or equal importance.
|
|
Stevens, J., Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & Van Elsacker, L. (2005). The influence of the steepness of dominance hierarchies on reciprocity and interchange in captive groups of bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behaviour, 142(7), 941–960.
Abstract: Biological market models explain variability in reciprocity and interchange between groups. In groups with a shallow dominance gradient, grooming will be mostly exchanged for itself (i.e. exchange will occur). In groups with steep dominance hierarchies, interchange is expected: individuals will groom higher ranking individuals to get access to limited resources or commodities such as support in conflicts, and grooming will be traded for these commodities. We examine patterns of reciprocity in grooming and support, and of interchange of grooming for support or for tolerance in six captive groups of bonobos. We test whether differences between groups in patterns of reciprocity and interchange can be attributed to differences in a measure of steepness of dominance hierarchies, which is based on dyadic agonistic interactions. We found that grooming was reciprocal in some, but not all groups. Support was highly reciprocal, but this was a side effect of dominance in most groups. Interchange between grooming and support was observed in some groups. Corroborating earlier findings, this was a side effect of individuals preferring high ranking individuals as grooming and support partners, possibly because these high-ranking individuals provide more efficient support in conflicts. There was no evidence for interchange of grooming for tolerance. Variability in grooming reciprocity was explained by differences in steepness of dominance hierarchies, as predicted by the biological market models. In groups with a shallow dominance hierarchy, grooming was more reciprocal. This was not true for reciprocity in support. There was some evidence that individuals groomed dominants more frequently in groups with a steep dominance hierarchy. The variation in interchange relations between grooming and support did not depend on the steepness of dominance hierarchies. We suggest that grooming in itself is a valuable commodity in bonobos, especially under captive conditions, which can be exchanged reciprocally. Bonobos may interchange grooming for another value equivalent, with food sharing as a very likely candidate. This interchange effects seem more dependent on potential to monopolise food than on steepness of dominance hierarchies per se.
|
|
Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & van Elsacker, L. (2000). The Pivotal Role Of Rank In Grooming And Support Behavior In A Captive Group Of Bonobos (Pan Paniscus). Behaviour, 137(11), 1463–1485.
Abstract: We investigated dyadic grooming relationships in a captive group of bonobos (Pan paniscus) and questioned what social function grooming fulfils in the 'market of services and favors'. Hereto we examined which of two theoretical models – grooming for support (Seyfarth, 1977, 1980) or grooming according to the similarity principle (de Waal & Luttrell, 1986) – best accounted for the observed grooming distribution. Similarity in traits did not correlate with increased grooming or close proximity among the individuals. Therefore, the similarity hypothesis was rejected. Seyfarth's model of rank-related grooming was largely confirmed. The animals distributed their grooming according to the rank of the receivers. We found an exchange between grooming and receipt of support. There was more grooming up than down the hierarchy. However, not all predictions about rank-related competition over grooming were confirmed. We found that dyadic grooming reciprocity indeed increased with decreasing rank distance. Yet, there was no increase of grooming within the dyad with decreasing rank distance and high ranking individuals were not competed over at the highest rates. The observed correlation between grooming and support received represents an important fit with Seyfarth's prediction, but does not allow for conclusions about underlying causal processes. Other causal explanations, besides the 'groom to receive support' hypothesis, that could explain a similar correlation are discussed.
|
|
Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & van Elsacker, L. (2000). Dominance and its Behavioral Measures in a Captive Group of Bonobos (Pan paniscus). Int. J. Primatol., 21(1), 47–68.
Abstract: We investigated the existence of a social dominance hierarchy in the captive group of six adult bonobos at the Planckendael Zoo. We quantified the pattern of dyadic exchange of a number of behaviors to examine to what extent each behavior fits a linear rank order model. Following de Waal (1989), we distinguish three types of dominance: agonistic dominance, competitive ability and formal dominance. Fleeing upon aggression is a good measure of agonistic dominance. The agonistic dominance hierarchy in the study group shows significant and strong linearity. The rank order was: 1. female (22 yr), 2. female (15 yr)., 3. male (23 yr.), 4. female (15 yr.), 5. male (9 yr.), 6. male (10 yr.). As in the wild, the females occupy high ranks. There is prominent but nonexclusive female agonistic dominance. Teeth-baring does not fulfil the criteria of a formal submission signal. Peering is a request for tolerance of proximity. Since its direction within dyads is consistent with that of fleeing interactions, it is a useful additional measure to determine agonistic ranks in bonobos. In competitive situations, the females acquire more food than other group members do. The rank obtained from access to food resources differs from the agonistic rank due to female intrasexual social tolerance, expressed in food sharing. We typify the dominance styles in the group as female intrasexual tolerance and male challenging of rank differences. The agonistic rank order correlates significantly with age and has a strong predictive value for other social behaviors.
|