Abstract

Studying animal grouping behavior is important for understanding the causes and consequences of sociality and has implications for conservation. Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) party size is often assessed by counting individuals or extracted indirectly from camera trap footage or the number of nests. Little is known, however, about consistency across methods for estimating party size. We collected party size data for wild chimpanzees in the Issa valley, western Tanzania, using direct observations, camera traps, and nest counts over six years (2012–2018). We compared mean monthly party size estimates calculated using each method and found that estimates derived from direct observations were weakly positively correlated with those derived from camera traps. Estimates from nest counts were not significantly correlated with either direct observations or camera traps. Overall observed party size was significantly larger than that estimated from both camera traps and nest counts. In both the dry and wet seasons, observed party size was significantly larger than camera trap party size, but not significantly larger than nest party size. Finally, overall party size and wet season party size estimated from camera traps were significantly smaller than nest party size, but this was not the case in the dry season. Our results reveal how data collection methods influence party size estimates in unhabituated chimpanzees and have implications for comparative analysis within and across primate communities. Specifically, future work must consider how estimates were calculated before we can reliably investigate environmental influences on primate behavior.

Highlights

  • Understanding animal grouping patterns is important for identifying causes and consequences of sociality (Hill and Dunbar 1998; Majolo et al 2008) and has implications for conservation (Nakashima et al 2013)

  • Party Size There was no significant relationship between mean monthly party size estimated from direct observations and time

  • We found a significant but weak positive relationship between mean monthly party size estimated from observations and camera traps (Spearman’s correlation test: rs = 0.31, N = 61, P = 0.014; Fig. 3a)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Understanding animal grouping patterns is important for identifying causes and consequences of sociality (Hill and Dunbar 1998; Majolo et al 2008) and has implications for conservation (Nakashima et al 2013). Recent technological developments have prompted application of a diversity of methods, including remote tracking via satellite telemetry (Markham and Altmann 2008), passive acoustic monitoring (Kalan et al 2016), and motion-triggered cameras (hereafter camera traps) (Boyer-Ontl and Pruetz 2014; Krief et al 2014; McCarthy et al 2018; van Leeuwen et al 2020) to reveal grouping behavior. Understanding how different methods affect group size estimates may improve monitoring of unhabituated primates and facilitate comparisons

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call