4.5 Article

To follow or not to follow: decision making and leadership during the morning departure in chacma baboons

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 1995-2004

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.012

关键词

chacma baboon; collective movement; consensus; decision making; leadership; Papio hamadryas ursinus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To benefit from group living, group members need to keep the group cohesive by coordinating time and direction of travelling. Self-organization and leadership are two means of coordination and two types of decision can be made on the group level: combined and consensus. We studied the initiation process of group movements during the morning departure of a group of chacma baboons, Papio hamadryas ursinus, from its sleeping site in De Hoop Nature Reserve, South Africa. Findings from other female-bonded primate groups led us to hypothesize that females should play a major role in the decision-making process. Approximately 75% of the adults made a start attempt, with 62 of 92 attempts being by males. There was no sex difference in the probability of being successful when initiating an attempt. Lactating females initiated fewer than pregnant or cycling females. Thus, at least for this group of chacma baboons, leadership appeared to be distributed and the decision about the timing of departure and travel direction seemed to be a partially shared consensus decision with adult males contributing more to the decision outcome, with a slightly more prominent role of the dominant male. Our results do not support the 'leading females' hypothesis. No behavioural patterns that might serve as specialized signals leading to a more successful recruitment of other group members were observed. The departure process appeared to be coordinated merely through individuals setting an example by moving off. (c) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据