Gregariousness, foraging effort, and affiliative interactions in lactating bonobos and chimpanzees.
bonobos
chimpanzees
feeding competition
fission–fusion
predation risk
sociality
Journal
Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
ISSN: 1045-2249
Titre abrégé: Behav Ecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9426330
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
09
03
2020
revised:
13
10
2020
accepted:
10
11
2020
entrez:
15
3
2021
pubmed:
16
3
2021
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fission-fusion dynamics have evolved in a broad range of animal taxa and are thought to allow individuals to mitigate feeding competition. While this is the principal benefit of fission-fusion, few studies have evaluated its costs. We compared gregariousness, foraging budgets, and social budgets between lactating bonobos and chimpanzees from wild populations to evaluate potential costs. Both species exhibit fission-fusion dynamics, but chimpanzees, particularly in East African populations, appear to experience higher feeding competition than bonobos. We expected lactating chimpanzees to be less gregarious than lactating bonobos; reduced gregariousness should allow lactating chimpanzees to mitigate the costs of higher feeding competition without requiring more foraging effort. However, we expected the reduced gregariousness of lactating chimpanzees to limit their time available for affiliative interactions. Using long-term data from LuiKotale bonobos and Gombe chimpanzees, we found that lactating chimpanzees were indeed less gregarious than lactating bonobos, while feeding and travel time did not differ between species. Contrary to our predictions, lactating females did not differ in social interaction time, and lactating chimpanzees spent proportionately more time interacting with individuals other than their immature offspring. Our results indicate that lactating chimpanzees can maintain social budgets comparable to lactating bonobos despite reduced gregariousness and without incurring additional foraging costs. We discuss potential explanations for why lactating bonobos are more gregarious.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33716569
doi: 10.1093/beheco/araa130
pii: araa130
pmc: PMC7937187
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
188-198Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R00 HD057992
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020 Mar;171(3):419-429
pubmed: 31845329
Primates. 2009 Jul;50(3):197-209
pubmed: 19353234
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017 May;163(1):158-172
pubmed: 28276048
R Soc Open Sci. 2017 May 3;4(5):161081
pubmed: 28573000
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2009 Aug;84(3):413-29
pubmed: 19485986
Am Nat. 1999 Jun;153(6):649-659
pubmed: 29585647
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017 Feb;162(2):285-299
pubmed: 27768227
Folia Primatol (Basel). 2006;77(3):212-7
pubmed: 16612095
Evol Anthropol. 2016 Sep;25(5):239-252
pubmed: 27753219
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e24280
pubmed: 21912627
Curr Anthropol. 2014 Aug;55(4):483-489
pubmed: 25328164
J Hum Evol. 2002 Dec;43(6):873-86
pubmed: 12473487
J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 1980;Suppl 28:13-31
pubmed: 6934308
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 18;106(33):13850-3
pubmed: 19667179
Behav Ecol. 2020 Dec 23;32(1):188-198
pubmed: 33716569
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 1;112(48):14882-7
pubmed: 26504236
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Sep 22;278(1719):2761-7
pubmed: 21307051
J Hum Evol. 2013 Sep;65(3):334-7
pubmed: 23706935
J Comp Physiol B. 2013 Feb;183(2):279-88
pubmed: 22972361
Ecol Evol. 2019 Jul 17;9(16):9111-9119
pubmed: 31463008
Horm Behav. 2019 Nov;116:104581
pubmed: 31449811
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 22;278(1705):590-8
pubmed: 20810444
Oecologia. 2012 Aug;169(4):975-80
pubmed: 22302514
PeerJ. 2015 Jul 21;3:e1114
pubmed: 26244118
Physiol Biochem Zool. 2000 Sep-Oct;73(5):547-56
pubmed: 11073789
J Anim Ecol. 2007 Mar;76(2):211-21
pubmed: 17302828
Anim Behav. 2015 Feb 1;100:192-198
pubmed: 25624528
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014 Jun;154(2):291-301
pubmed: 24615436
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47508
pubmed: 23077627
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 30;6:34087
pubmed: 27686155
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020 Jan;171(1):100-109
pubmed: 31587261
Science. 1999 Jan 15;283(5400):335-6
pubmed: 9925492
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 23;7(1):380
pubmed: 28336913
Oecologia. 2019 Oct;191(2):335-347
pubmed: 31451928
J Hum Evol. 2016 Dec;101:1-16
pubmed: 27886808
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 14;11(9):e0162091
pubmed: 27626279
Curr Biol. 2006 Mar 7;16(5):R169-71
pubmed: 16527735
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):527-31
pubmed: 22722832
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Apr 11;285(1876):
pubmed: 29643212
Ecol Evol. 2020 Aug 11;10(17):9240-9256
pubmed: 32953058
Int J Primatol. 2008 Feb;29(1):65-81
pubmed: 19816541
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35
pubmed: 19185386
Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1231-4
pubmed: 14615543
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 31;9(12):e116544
pubmed: 25551620
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 09;9(6):e99099
pubmed: 24911160
Anim Behav. 2000 Jul;60(1):107-120
pubmed: 10924210