Prosociality and reciprocity in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

Lalot, Mathilde; Delfour, Fabienne; Mercera, Birgitta; Bovet, Dalila

doi:10.1007/s10071-021-01499-z

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative explanation is that stable relationships between preferred partners are maintained and reinforced at different times and through different prosocial activities (e.g. grooming, food sharing and cooperative behaviours; Cronin, 2012; Kutsukake & Clutton‐Brock, 2010; Lalot et al., 2021). Given that our data are limited to three periods of the day (foraging sessions), and that we lack information on the interactions and behaviours that have occurred among group members between experimental sessions, we need to be careful in interpreting this result.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging networks and social tolerance in a cooperatively breeding primate (Callithrix jacchus)

Fuente

Sueur

Garber

et al. 2021

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Within-group competition over food resources can be a major cost of social living.In the wild, foragers are confronted with social (e.g. hierarchical rank) and ecological (e.g. food availability and distribution) challenges that affect their foraging decisions and feeding success. Exhibiting prosocial behaviours, such as tolerance at feeding sites, can benefit group members by developing affiliative social relationships, enhancing access to resources and maximizing fitness.2. We examined social tolerance at feeding sites in Callithrix jacchus, a cooperatively breeding primate species. We investigated the set of social (rank, age and sex) and ecological (food availability) factors that influence the structure and dynamics of within-group foraging association networks.3. We designed and conducted an experimental field study of four wild groups of common marmosets in which we controlled food distribution (concentrated or scattered) and productivity (high, medium or low food rewards). Then, we used social network analyses to assess the number and strength of foraging associations among group members, their effects on individual food consumption, and whether recent experiences with conspecifics during foraging affected subsequent associations. 4. Overall, common marmoset foraging association networks were cohesive, as group members jointly occupied feeding sites. The number and strength of associations varied depending on the ecological context. Associations were stronger during conditions in which food was concentrated at a single site. Individuals obtained greater access to food resources when sharing a feeding site with conspecifics, but once a food item was obtained, the forager moved to a nearby tree and consumed it away from others. Additionally, the strength of previous foraging associations and subsequent levels of social tolerance at feeding sites were positively related, a relationship compatible with the ability of memorizing associations over time and recalling the information in future decision-making. 5. In sum, marmosets adjusted their partner choices and the strength of foraging associations in response to food availability. They exhibited increased social tolerance at feeding sites during conditions in which opportunities for contest competition were expected to be greatest. These cooperative breeding primates | 139

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging networks and social tolerance in a cooperatively breeding primate (Callithrix jacchus)

Fuente

Sueur

Garber

et al. 2021

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To gain insight into the evolutionary basis of human prosociality, and to investigate to what extent animals show comparable levels of prosociality, an increasing number of studies has investigated prosociality in animals. Most experimental prosociality studies have focused on primates (reviewed in Marshall-Pescini et al, 2016 ), but more recent research has also demonstrated prosociality in other species, including rodents ( Hernandez-Lallement et al, 2015 ; Márquez et al, 2015 ; Schweinfurth & Taborsky, 2018 ; Lalot et al, 2021b ), canids ( Quervel-Chaumette et al, 2015 ; Dale et al, 2016 ; Dale et al, 2019a ; Dale et al, 2019b ), cetaceans ( Nakahara et al, 2017 ; Lalot et al, 2021a ), corvids ( Horn et al, 2016 , 2020 ; Massen, Haley & Bugnyar, 2020 ), parrots ( Krasheninnikova et al, 2019 ; Brucks & von Bayern, 2020 ; Laumer et al, 2021 ) and fish ( Satoh et al, 2021 ). However, other studies found no evidence for prosociality ( e.g .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adult bonobos show no prosociality in both prosocial choice task and group service paradigm

Verspeek

Leeuwen

Laméris

et al. 2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies reported contrasting conclusions concerning bonobo prosociality, which are likely due to differences in the experimental design, the social dynamics among subjects and characteristics of the subjects themselves. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the occurrence of prosociality in animals: the cooperative breeding hypothesis and the self-domestication hypothesis. While the former predicts low levels of prosociality in bonobos because they are non-cooperative breeders, the latter predicts high levels of prosociality because self-domestication has been proposed to select for high levels of tolerance in this species. Here, we presented a group of thirteen bonobos with two platform food-provisioning tasks: the prosocial choice task (PCT) and the group service paradigm (GSP). The latter has so far never been applied to bonobos. To allow for free choice of participation and partner, we implemented both tasks in a group setting. Like in previous PCT studies, bonobos did not choose the prosocial option more often when a group member could benefit vs not benefit. In the GSP, where food provisioning is costly, only subadult bonobos showed a limited amount of food provisioning, which was much lower than what was previously reported for chimpanzees. In both experiments, adult subjects were highly motivated to obtain rewards for themselves, suggesting that bonobos behaved indifferently to the gains of group members. We suggest that previous positive food-provisioning prosociality results in bonobos are mainly driven by the behaviour of subadult subjects. The lack of prosociality in this study corresponds to the hypothesis that proactive food provisioning co-occurs with cooperative breeding and suggests that proactive prosociality might not be part of the self-domestication syndrome in bonobos.

show abstract

“…Firstly, subjects are tested in social groups in their home environment (e.g. (29,30)), which improves ecological validity by giving animals the choice about whether, when and whom to help, while allowing for competing motivations (e.g. exploring, feeding, resting, social interactions with other group members).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous helping in pigs is mediated by helper’s social attention and distress signals of individuals in need

Moscovice

Eggert

Manteuffel

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Helping behaviour is of special interest for the study of prosociality because it appears to be motivated by the needs of others. We developed a novel paradigm to investigate helping behaviour in pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) and tested n = 75 individuals in eight groups in their home pens. During familiarization, two identical compartments were attached to the home pen, equipped with a mesh window and a door that could be opened from the outside by lifting a handle. During testing, a pig was briefly isolated from its group and then placed in one of the compartments. Each pig was trapped once, during two daily test sessions per group. Pigs spontaneously learned to open doors, and in 85% of cases, pigs released a trapped group member within 20 minutes (median latency = 2.2 minutes). Pigs who were more proficient at door-opening during familiarization, and more attentive to the trapped pig were more likely to help. Trapped pigs exhibited behavioural signals of distress and increases in cortisol. Distress signals by the trapped pig increased its chances of being helped. Results are consistent with several criteria for identifying targeted helping in animals, but we also discuss alternative explanations based on selfish motivations.

show abstract

Prosociality and reciprocity in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

Cited by 8 publications

References 82 publications

Foraging networks and social tolerance in a cooperatively breeding primate (Callithrix jacchus)

Foraging networks and social tolerance in a cooperatively breeding primate (Callithrix jacchus)

Adult bonobos show no prosociality in both prosocial choice task and group service paradigm

Spontaneous helping in pigs is mediated by helper’s social attention and distress signals of individuals in need

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About