4.5 Article

Social 'predators' within a multilevel primate society

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 653-658

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.021

关键词

bachelor; group living; movement; selfish herd; spacing; Theropithecus gelada

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS-0715179, BCS-0962160, BCS-0962118]
  2. Graduate Research Fellowship Program
  3. Leakey Foundation
  4. U.S. Fulbright Program
  5. University of Pennsylvania
  6. University of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group living confers a variety of benefits to individuals, particularly in predator detection and defence. Hamilton's selfish herd hypothesis (Hamilton 1971, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 31, 295-311) posits that individuals come together to reduce their own risk of predation, and numerous studies have shown that predators affect both the grouping and spacing patterns of their prey. We suggest that this hypothesis is also useful for understanding group responses to a very different threat: that posed by nonbreeding, potentially infanticidal males. In such cases, males may act as a predator-like force on the grouping patterns of breeding individuals. We hypothesized that nonbreeding males, like predators, can affect the spacing patterns of conspecifics. Specifically, we examined the effect of bachelor males on both the grouping and spacing patterns of gelada, Theropithecus gelada, reproductive units. First, we demonstrated that the number of bachelors was positively correlated with the number of animals in a group. Second, and more importantly, we found that bachelors exerted an acute pressure on the spacing of individuals; as bachelors approached, breeding individuals moved closer to their nearest neighbours. By approaching other breeding individuals, reproductive males and females may dilute the costs of associating with bachelor males. (C) 2012 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