Why do male chimpanzees defend a group range?

Williams, Jennifer M.; Oehlert, Gary W.; Carlis, John V.; Pusey, Anne E.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.09.015

Cited by 264 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, although heavily disputed and long considered absent among primates [58], some multimale primate societies may indeed exhibit mating systems that can be characterized as resource defence (or territorial) polygyny [10,15,26]. In contrast to Emlen & Oring's [15] original idea of solitary females being attracted to individual males that defend territories or resources, however, in non-human primates multiple males jointly defend a group's territory, and this may occur with either female dispersal or philopatry [27,59].…”

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lethal aggression and intercommunity killings that have been observed at multiple sites [60,61] may ultimately help to expand a group's area [61], which can benefit female reproductive performance [59]. Similarly, cooperative male resource defence polygyny appears to be the mating system of Phayre's leaf monkeys, a mid-sized Asian colobine we studied in Thailand [56,62].…”

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, such a cooperative male resource defence polygyny seems to be the best characterization of the mating system for common chimpanzees, in which males patrol and defend an area [59]. The lethal aggression and intercommunity killings that have been observed at multiple sites [60,61] may ultimately help to expand a group's area [61], which can benefit female reproductive performance [59].…”

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Variation in grouping patterns, mating systems and social structure: what socio-ecological models attempt to explain

Koenig

Scarry

Wheeler

et al. 2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-ecological models aim to predict the variation in social systems based on a limited number of ecological parameters. Since the 1960s, the original model has taken two paths: one relating to grouping patterns and mating systems and one relating to grouping patterns and female social structure. Here, we review the basic ideas specifically with regard to non-human primates, present new results and point to open questions. While most primates live in permanent groups and exhibit female defence polygyny, recent studies indicate more flexibility with cooperative male resource defence occurring repeatedly in all radiations. In contrast to other animals, the potential link between ecology and these mating systems remains, however, largely unexplored. The model of the ecology of female social structure has often been deemed successful, but has recently been criticized. We show that the predicted association of agonistic rates and despotism (directional consistency of relationships) was not supported in a comparative test. The overall variation in despotism is probably due to phylogenetic grade shifts. At the same time, it varies within clades more or less in the direction predicted by the model. This suggests that the model's utility may lie in predicting social variation within but not across clades.

show abstract

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (B) the Roads Less Travelledmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation in grouping patterns, mating systems and social structure: what socio-ecological models attempt to explain

Koenig

Scarry

Wheeler

et al. 2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the outcome of encounters between communities depends partly on the number of males present (Boesch and Boesch-Achermann, 2000;Watts and Mitani, 2001;Watts et al, 2006;Wilson and Wrangham, 2003;Wrangham, 1999). Likewise, the number of males per community influences success in intercommunity competition, which in turn can influence female reproductive success through its effects on food availability and on safety (Williams et al, 2004;Wilson and Wrangham, 2003).…”

Section: Conflict Management and Resolution In Chimpanzeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict Resolution in Chimpanzees and the Valuable-relationships Hypothesis

Watts

2006

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Empirical data, however, are equivocal. Competitive ability increases with group size in many species (1, 2, 5-7), but numerical superiority rarely ensures victory (8,9), and a link between group size, group strength, and individual reproductive success has been demonstrated in only a handful of species (7,10,11). Though field observations have revealed that intergroup conflicts can lead to the displacement (8), dispossession (12,13), and even the extinction (14-16) of weak social groups, these extreme outcomes are rare.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating monkeys undermine group strength in enemy territory

Crofoot

Gilby

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many social animals, group-mates cooperate to defend their range against intrusion by neighboring groups. Because group size tends to be highly variable, such conflicts are often asymmetric. Although numerical superiority is assumed to provide a competitive advantage, small groups can generally defend their ranges, even when greatly outnumbered. The prevailing explanation for this puzzling phenomenon is that individuals in relatively large groups experience a greater temptation to flee from conflicts, in effect leveling the balance of power. Using playback experiments simulating territorial intrusions by wild capuchin monkey (Cebus capucinus) groups, we show that such a collective action problem does indeed undermine the competitive ability of large groups. Focal capuchins were more likely to run away from territorial intrusions when their group had a numeric advantage; each one-individual increase in relative group size raised the odds of flight by 25%. However, interaction location had a more important impact on individuals' reactions, creating a strong home-field advantage. After controlling for relative group size, the odds that a focal animal fled were 91% lower in experiments that occurred in the center compared with on the edge of its group's range, whereas the odds that it rushed toward the speaker were more than sixfold higher. These location-dependent patterns of defection and cooperation create a competitive advantage for residents over intruders across a wide range of relative group sizes, which may stabilize range boundaries and provide a general explanation for how groups of widely divergent sizes can coexist, even in the face of intense intergroup competition.intergroup aggression | territoriality | resource holding potential |

show abstract

Why do male chimpanzees defend a group range?

Cited by 264 publications

References 34 publications

Variation in grouping patterns, mating systems and social structure: what socio-ecological models attempt to explain

Variation in grouping patterns, mating systems and social structure: what socio-ecological models attempt to explain

Conflict Resolution in Chimpanzees and the Valuable-relationships Hypothesis

Cheating monkeys undermine group strength in enemy territory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About