Conflict and Cooperation in Wild Chimpanzees

Muller, Martin N.; Mitani, John C.

doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(05)35007-8

Cited by 298 publications

(242 citation statements)

References 158 publications

(260 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

231

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the context of the current study, we cannot provide a proximate explanation for why high-ranking males do not have an energetic advantage. There are suggestions that high-ranking male chimpanzees may gain subtle feeding advantages over subordinates, such as in preferential access to prime feeding sites in a patch or enhanced ability to steal meat (Goodall, 1986;Kahlenberg, 2006;Mitani and Watts, 1999;Wrangham, 1975), though these are of arguable long-term consequence (Muller and Mitani, 2005). On the other hand, any caloric advantage of dominance may be offset by greater investment in dominance behaviors and mating competition, the energetic costs of which have not been quantified (Muller and Wrangham, 2004a,b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we examine whether variation in male social status has an impact on energy balance, as reflected in Cpeptide levels. There is a general expectation that high-ranking males should have increased access to energy, because they tend to occupy prime feeding sites and monopolize high-quality foods such as meat (Muller and Mitani, 2005). However, high-ranking males also exhibit elevated aggression rates and stress hormone levels, suggesting that they invest disproportionately in behaviors that are energetically costly, potentially negating their nutritional advantage (Muller and Wrangham, 2004a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urinary C-peptide tracks seasonal and individual variation in energy balance in wild chimpanzees

Thompson

Muller

Wrangham

et al. 2009

Hormones and Behavior

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

C-peptide of insulin presents a promising new tool for behavioral ecologists that allows for regular, noninvasive assessment of energetic condition in wild animals. C-peptide is produced on an equimolar basis with insulin, thus is indicative of the body's response to available glucose and, with repeated measurement, provides a biomarker of energy balance. As yet, few studies have validated the efficacy of C-peptide for monitoring energy balance in wild animals. Here, we assess seasonal and interindividual variation in urinary C-peptide concentrations of East African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). We assayed 519 urine samples from 13 adult male chimpanzees in the Kanyawara community of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Cpeptide levels were significantly predicted by the total amount of fruit and the amount of preferred fruit in the diet. However, chimpanzees had very low C-peptide titers during an epidemic of severe respiratory illness, despite highly favorable feeding conditions. Kanyawara males had significantly lower C-peptide levels than males at Ngogo, a nearby chimpanzee community occupying a more productive habitat. Among Kanyawara males, low-ranking males had consistently higher C-peptide levels than dominant males. While counterintuitive, this result supports previous findings of costs associated with dominance in male chimpanzees. Our preliminary investigations demonstrate that C-peptide has wide applications in field research, providing an accessible tool for evaluating seasonal and individual variation in energetic condition, as well as the costs of processes such as immune function and reproduction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urinary C-peptide tracks seasonal and individual variation in energy balance in wild chimpanzees

Thompson

Muller

Wrangham

et al. 2009

Hormones and Behavior

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human coalitions and alliances range from cooperation within a single family to acts of support between nation-states (Chagnon, 1988;Bowles, 2009;Apicella et al, 2012). On a smaller scale, coalitions and alliances are common in our closest relatives, including for example the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes, review in Muller & Mitani, 2005), as well as a number of non-primate species (reviewed by Smith et al, 2010).…”

Section: A Brief Primer On Coalition Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The power of a veto player may also be based on a unique skill, or possession of a unique resource. A key player playing off of two partners against each other is a situation that has been described for both captive and wild male chimpanzees (de Waal, 1982;Nishida, 1983;Muller & Mitani, 2005), and primate negotiation without language is discussed by de Waal (1996) and Melis et al (2009).…”

Section: General Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

Self Cite

109

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

“…Early work on cost-free generosity in primates, however, failed to show other-regarding preferences. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), one of the most cooperative primate species (de Waal 2003;Melis et al 2006a, b;Muller and Mitani 2005), did not demonstrate any regard for the food payoffs of other individuals. In two different tasks, chimpanzees could choose one of two options.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Stevens

2010

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Helping others at no cost to oneself is a simple way to demonstrate other-regarding preferences. Yet, primates exhibit mixed results for other-regarding preferences: chimpanzees and tamarins do not show these effects, whereas capuchin monkeys and marmosets preferentially give food to others. One factor of relevance to this no-cost food donation is the payoff to the donor. Though donors always receive the same payoffs regardless of their choice, previous work varies in whether they receive either a food reward or no food reward. Here, I tested cotton-top tamarins in a preferential giving task. Subjects could choose from two tools, one of which delivered food to a partner in an adjacent cage and the other of which delivered food to an empty cage. Thus, subjects could preferentially give or withhold food from a partner. I varied whether subjects received food payoffs, whether a partner was present or absent, and whether the partner was a non-cagemate or the subject's mate. Results showed that the subjects' overall motivation to pull either tool declined when they did not receive any food. Additionally, they did not preferentially donate or withhold food, regardless of their own payoff or their relationship with the partner. Thus, cotton-top tamarins do not take advantage of costfree food giving, either when they might gain in the future (mates) or when they have no opportunity for future interactions (non-cagemates).

show abstract

Conflict and Cooperation in Wild Chimpanzees

Cited by 298 publications

References 158 publications

Urinary C-peptide tracks seasonal and individual variation in energy balance in wild chimpanzees

Urinary C-peptide tracks seasonal and individual variation in energy balance in wild chimpanzees

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Donor payoffs and other-regarding preferences in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About