Time allocation and the evolution of group size

Pollard, Kimberly A.; Blumstein, Daniel T.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.006

Cited by 70 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not directly test the relation between food competition and group size in our model, but several studies have already supported this hypoth esis (Berman et al, 2008;Dittus, 1988). Moreover, group size and grooming time, elements that can be influenced by ecological factors such as food competition or predation Majolo et al, 2008;Pollard and Blumstein, 2008), did not directly influence the probability that a group would split. Social relationships directly influenced group fission probability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Time is a finite resource and grooming time, therefore, has to be limited if an individual also wishes to forage, rest or move (Dunbar, 1992b;Lehmann et al, 2007;Majolo et al, 2008;Pollard and Blumstein, 2008). Nevertheless, grooming may be the most impor tant behavior used by primates for maintaining social rela tionships (Henzi and Barrett, 1999;Schino, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, the partner in question typically reciprocates with the same tolerance and support (Henzi and Barrett, 1999;Dunbar et al, 2009). However, grooming needs time, and time is a limited resource (Dunbar, 1992b;Lehmann et al, 2007;Majolo et al, 2008;Pollard and Blumstein, 2008;Dunbar et al, 2009). In addition to maintaining social relationships, indivi duals need to rest, forage and move (Pollard and Blumstein, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, grooming needs time, and time is a limited resource (Dunbar, 1992b;Lehmann et al, 2007;Majolo et al, 2008;Pollard and Blumstein, 2008;Dunbar et al, 2009). In addition to maintaining social relationships, indivi duals need to rest, forage and move (Pollard and Blumstein, 2008). As a consequence, grooming seldom exceeds 15% of day time activity for most social species (Dunbar, 1991;Lehmann et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, grooming seldom exceeds 15% of day time activity for most social species (Dunbar, 1991;Lehmann et al, 2007). Some authors have investigated how an individual manages to maintain its social relationships when grooming time is limited but group size or within group competition for food has increased (Chapman et al, 1995;Dunbar, 1992b;Janson and Goldsmith, 1995;Lehmann et al, 2007;Majolo et al, 2008;Pollard and Blumstein, 2008;Ron et al, 1994). Lehmann et al (2007) have suggested that when group size and the number of available partners increase, each individual will have to spend more time grooming until a certain group size for which it is impossible to maintain relationships with all group members (Dunbar, 1992a;Lehmann et al, 2007;Schino et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Sueur

Deneubourg²,

Petit

et al. 2011

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn social animals, fission is a common mode of group proliferation and dispersion and may be affected by genetic or other social factors. Sociality implies preserving relationships between group members. An increase in group size and/or in competition for food within the group can result in decrease certain social interactions between members, and the group may split irreversibly as a consequence. One individual may try to maintain bonds with a maximum of group members in order to keep group cohesion, i.e. proximity and stable relationships. However, this strategy needs time and time is often limited. In addition, previous studies have shown that whatever the group size, an individual interacts only with certain grooming partners. There, we develop a computational model to assess how dynamics of group cohesion are related to group size and to the structure of grooming relationships. Groups' sizes after simulated fission are compared to observed sizes of 40 groups of primates. Results showed that the relationship between grooming time and group size is dependent on how each individual attributes grooming time to its social partners, i.e. grooming a few number of preferred partners or grooming equally or not all partners. The number of partners seemed to be more important for the group cohesion than the grooming time itself. This structural constraint has important consequences on group sociality, as it gives the possibility of competition for grooming partners, attraction for high ranking individuals as found in primates' groups. It could, however, also have implications when considering the cognitive capacities of primates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Sueur

Deneubourg²,

Petit

et al. 2011

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Determinants of daily path length in black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) in northeastern Argentina

Raño

Kowalewski

Cerezo

et al. 2016

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models used to explain the social organization of primates suggest that variation in daily path length (DPL) is a response to variation in resource distribution and the intensity of intragroup feeding competition. However, daily path length may be affected by a number of other factors including the availability and distribution of nutritionally complementary food items, temperature which can influence activity budget, patterns of subgrouping, and the frequency and function of intergroup encounters. In this 6-month study (total 495 hr of quantitative data), we examined daily path lengths in two neighboring groups of black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) inhabiting a semi-deciduous gallery forest in San Cayetano (27° 30'S, 58° 41'W), in the northwest province of Corrientes, Argentina. Both study groups were of similar size and composition. We identified relationships across groups between time spent feeding on fruits, leaves, and flowers, the number of trees visited, group spread, frequency of intergroup encounters, mean daily temperature, and DPL. Our results suggest that variation in food availability had a significant impact on howler ranging behavior by increasing DPL under conditions of high immature and mature fruit availability, and by decreasing DPL with increased availability and increased time invested in feeding on mature leaves. These results do not support the contention that a reduction in food availability or an increase in within-group feeding competition increased DPL in black and gold howler monkeys. DPL in black and gold howlers is influenced by several interrelated factors. In this regard we suggest that models of socio-ecology and ecological constraints need to reconsider how factors such as individual nutritional requirements, social tolerance and group cohesion, and the spatial and temporal availability of preferred and nearby food resources influence primate ranging behavior. Am. J. Primatol. 78:825-837, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Environment and time as constraints on the biogeographical distribution of gibbons

Dunbar

Cheyne

Daoying³

et al. 2019

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a time budget model for the hylobatid family with the aim of assessing the extent to which their contemporary and historical biogeographic distributions might be explained by ecological constraints. The model uses local climate to predict time budgets, and from this the limiting size of social group that animals could manage at a given location. The model predicts maximum group sizes that vary between 3 and 15 within the taxon's current distribution, indicating that the combination of their dietary and locomotor styles with the kinds of habitats they inhabit radically constrain group size. Beyond the edges of their current distribution, sustainable group size rapidly tends to zero, although if they had been able to bypass some of these areas, they would have found very suitable habitats in southern India and beyond the Wallace Line. While travel time would be a major constraint on group size at larger group sizes, as it is in great apes, the main factor limiting the gibbon's current distribution is the time they need to spend resting that is imposed on them by the environment. The model also indicates that gibbons would not now be able to survive in regions of central and southeastern China where they are known to have occurred within historical times, perhaps because historical climate change following the Little Ice Age of the C18th made these regions uninhabitable for them. Finally, our results indicate that gibbons have the ecological capacity to live in larger groups than they do, making it unlikely that their adoption of monogamy reflects purely ecological constraints.

show abstract

Time allocation and the evolution of group size

Cited by 70 publications

References 84 publications

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Determinants of daily path length in black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) in northeastern Argentina

Environment and time as constraints on the biogeographical distribution of gibbons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About