Ecological models of female social relationships in primates: similarities, disparities, and some directions for future clarity

Abstract

SummarySeveral models have been proposed to explain the variation that exists in female social relationships among diurnal primate species. While there are similarities among them, notably in the ecological cause of agonistic relationships among females within groups, their differences are most useful in testing which of the models most accurately re ects the real world. These include the question of whether competition is an inevitable cost of living in groups and whether female philopatry is a consequence of the costs of dispersal or the bene ts of forming coalitions with female kin. We discuss in detail these similarities and differences, and attempt to integrate the models' divergent views into some guidelines for use in testing between models that will lead to the next generation of models.

Social structure, vigilance and behaviour of plains zebra (Equus burchellii): a 5-year case study of individuals living on a managed wildlife reserve

“…In primates reduced aggression in the utilisation of clumped resources may be one function (Isbell and Young 2002). But in animals where food is dispersed, the shared protection of juveniles may be more important (as proposed for elephants in (Archie et al 2006).…”

Dominance rank of adult females and mating competition in Sichuan snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana) in the Qinling Mountains, China

“…Previous research has determined that dominance hierarchy is "indulgent" for dominant individuals and "relaxed" for subordinate individuals in captive Sichuan snub-nosed monkeys [37]. A low rate of agonistic interactions may coincide with weak or indiscernible dominance hierarchies [38,39], but female dominance hierarchy in R. roxellana did exist. Similar observations have been made in other primate species, e.g.…”

Females go where the food is: does the socio-ecological model explain variation in social organisation of solitary foragers?

“…Initially, predictions of the SEM about variability in social organisation were confirmed by qualitative comparisons between species (weaver birds, Crook 1964;ungulates, Jarman 1974;primates, Eisenberg et al 1972;Hladikprimates were studied intensively with regard to variation in social structure, resulting in refined versions of the original SEM (reviewed in Janson 2000;Koenig 2002;Isbell and Young 2002;Koenig and Borries 2006). These studies focused mainly on the consequences of variation in food availability, quality and distribution on the mode and strength of feeding competition and their effects on reproductive success and social behaviour of group-living females (Wrangham 1980;van Schaik 1989;Isbell 1991;Sterck et al 1997;Linklater 2000;Koenig 2002).…”

“…To date, the SEM has accumulated considerable support in explaining variation in group-living primates (reviewed in Sterck et al 1997;Isbell and Young 2002;Koenig 2002;Koenig and Borries 2006;Snaith and Chapman 2007). Recently, Schülke (2003) argued that when several individuals share a territory, females compete for food with these individuals, irrespective of synchronised activity.…”