|
Barton, R. A., Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1996). Ecology, feeding competition and social structure in baboons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 38(5), 321–329.
Abstract: Predictions of the model of van Schaik (1989) of female-bonding in primates are tested by systematically comparing the ecology, level of within-group contest competition for food (WGC), and patterns of social behaviour found in two contrasting baboon populations. Significant differences were found in food distribution (percentage of the diet from clumped sources), feeding supplant rates and grooming patterns. In accord with the model, the tendencies of females to affiliate and form coalitions with one another, and to be philopatric, were strongest where ecological conditions promoted WGC. Group fission in the population with strong WGC was “horizontal” with respect to female dominance rank, and associated with female-female aggression during a period of elevated feeding competition. In contrast, where WGC was low, females' grooming was focused on adult males rather than other females. Recent evidence suggests that group fission here is initiated by males, tends to result in the formation of one-male groups, and is not related to feeding competition but to male-male competition for mates. An ecological model of baboon social structure is presented which incorporates the effects of female-female competition, male-male competition, and predation pressure. The model potentially accounts for wide variability in group size, group structure and social relationships within the genus Papio. Socio-ecological convergence between common baboons and hamadryas baboons, however, may be limited in some respects by phylogenetic inertia.
|
|
|
Croneya, C. C. (2007). Group size and cognitive processes. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 103(3-4), 15–228.
Abstract: Animal group sizes may exert important effects on various cognitive mechanisms. Group
size is believed to exert pressures on fundamental brain structures that correlate with the
increased social demands placed on animals living in relatively large, complex and dynamic
social organizations. There is strong experimental evidence connecting social complexity,
social learning and development of other cognitive abilities in a broad range of wild and
domesticated animal species. In particular, group size seems to have significant effects on
animals? abilities to derive concrete and abstract relationships. Here, we review the literature
pertaining to cognitive processes and behaviours of various animal species relative to group
size, with emphasis on social learning. It is suggested that understanding the relationship
between group size and cognition in animals may yield practical animal management
benefits, such as housing and conservation strategies, and may also have implications for
improved animal welfare.
|
|
|
Knopff, K., & Pavelka, M. (2006). Feeding Competition and Group Size in Alouatta pigra. Int. J. Primatol., 27(4), 1059–1078.
Abstract: Researchers consider group size in primates to be determined by complex relationships among numerous ecological forces. Antipredator benefits and better resource defense are the primary pressures for large groups. Conversely, intragroup limited food availability, can result in greater intragroup feeding competition and individual energy expenditure in larger groups, creating energetic advantages for individuals in small groups and placing an upper limit group size. However, the extent to which food availability constrains group size remains unclear for many species, including black howlers (Alouatta pigra), which ubiquitously live in small social groups (≤10 individuals). We studied the relationship between group size and 2 key indices of feeding competition-day journey length and activity budgets in 3 groups of wild Alouatta pigra at a hurricane-damaged site in Belize, Central America. We controlled for differences in food availability between home ranges (food tree density) and compared both indicators of feeding competition directly with temporal variation in food availability for each group. Our results show no consistent association between resource availability, group size, and either index of competition, indicating that feeding competition does not limit group size at the site i.e., that larger groups can form without increased costs of feeding competition. The results support the search for other explanations, possibly social ones, for small group size in the primates, and we conclude with suggestions and evidence for such alternative explanations.
|
|