Abstract

Male-male social relationships in group-living mammals vary from fierce competition to the formation of opportunistic coalitions or the development of long-lasting bonds. We investigated male-male relationships in Guinea baboons (Papio papio), a species characterized by male-male tolerance and affiliation. Guinea baboons live in a multi-level society, with units of one reproductively active “primary” male, 1–6 females, and offspring at the core level. Together with “bachelor” males, several units form a party, and 2–3 parties constitute a gang. We aimed to clarify to which degree male relationship patterns varied with relatedness and pair-bond status, i.e., whether males had primary or bachelor status. Data were collected from 24 males in two parties of Guinea baboons near Simenti in the Niokolo-Koba National Park in Senegal. Males maintained differentiated and equitable affiliative relationships (“strong bonds”) with other males that were stable over a 4-year period, irrespective of their pair-bond status. Remarkably, most bachelor males maintained strong bonds with multiple primary males, indicating that bachelor males play an important role in the cohesion of the parties. A clear male dominance hierarchy could not be established due to the high degree of uncertainty in individual rank scores, yet bachelor males were more likely to be found at the low end of the dominance hierarchy. Average relatedness was significantly higher between strongly bonded males, suggesting that kin biases contribute to the social preferences of males. Long-term data will be needed to test how male bonds affect male tenure and ultimately reproductive success.Significance statementMales living in social groups may employ different strategies to increase their reproductive success, from fierce fighting to opportunistic alliance formation or the development of long-term bonds. To shed light on the factors that shape male strategies, we investigated male-male social relationships in the multilevel society of Guinea baboons (Papio papio) where “primary” males are associated with a small number of females and their offspring in “units” while other males are “bachelors.” Strong bonds occurred among and between primary and bachelor males and strongly bonded males were, on average, more closely related. Bachelor males typically had multiple bond partners and thus play an important role in the fabric of Guinea baboon societies. Across primate species, neither dispersal patterns nor social organization clearly map onto the presence of strong bonds in males, suggesting multiple routes to the evolution of male bonds.

Highlights

  • Individuals living in social groups typically develop differentiated relationships

  • To shed light on the factors that shape male strategies, we investigated male-male social relationships in the multilevel society of Guinea baboons (Papio papio) where “primary” males are associated with a small number of females and their offspring in “units” while other males are “bachelors.” Strong bonds occurred among and between primary and bachelor males and strongly bonded males were, on average, more closely related

  • These findings justify the claim that male Guinea baboons form strong social bonds

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Individuals living in social groups typically develop differentiated relationships. Recurring affiliation and mutual support can give rise to the development of “strong bonds,” which have been defined as relationships that are stable over time, equitable, and stronger (defined by more frequent or longer lasting affiliative interactions) compared to other relationships within the same group (Silk 2002). Bond formation among non-kin males has been reported for several mammalian species (e.g., African lions, Panthera leo: Grinnell et al 1995; chimpanzees: Langergraber et al 2007; bottlenose dolphins: Gerber et al 2019; and Assamese macaques: De Moor et al 2020). These findings indicate that such relationships can emerge through direct mutualistic benefits, where all contributors gain more than if they acted alone (Clutton-Brock 2002, 2009; Ostner and Schülke 2014)

Objectives
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