Abstract

Next to predator detection, primate vigilance also serves to keep track of relevant conspecifics. The degree of vigilance towards group members often reflects the dominance rank of an individual: subordinates pay attention to dominants. Although it has been suggested that subordinates’ vigilance may result in spatial centrality of dominants, this has not been addressed in either empirical or modeling studies. Using agent-based models, we determined how social vigilance affects socio-spatial properties of primate groups. A basic model without social vigilance, where individuals avoid potential aggressors (avoidance model), was contrasted with two models that each additionally included a different type of social vigilance: a) monitoring a specific potential aggressor to remain informed on its whereabouts (monitoring model) or b) scanning the whole group to detect potential aggressors (scanning model). Adding monitoring or scanning behavior to the avoidance model reinforced spatial centrality of dominants, a pattern often observed in primates, and resulted in more spread out groups. Moreover, variation in scanning tendency alone was already sufficient to generate spatial centrality of dominants: frequently scanning subordinates could move further away from the group center than dominants, before losing sight of group members. In the monitoring model, two mechanisms caused decreased encounter frequencies among subordinates: a) increased inter-individual distances, and b) frequent monitoring of central dominants. In the scanning model, encounters among subordinates decreased due to increased inter-individual distances. This agent-based model study provides a clear indication that individual variation in social vigilance may be an important structuring feature of primate social groups.

Highlights

  • Group-living animals can afford to spend less time on vigilance behavior towards potential predators than solitary animals

  • We first constructed a model of a group of primates, where individuals employ grouping behavior, dominance interactions and spatial avoidance of potential aggressors. We contrast this avoidance model which lacks any social vigilance behavior with two models that each include one of the two types of social vigilance, reported in the primate literature: a) monitoring a specific potential aggressor to remain informed on its whereabouts or b) scanning the whole group to detect potential aggressors

  • We wanted to explore whether and how individual variation in social vigilance alone may already be sufficient to result in spatial centrality of dominants, a pattern that has been reported for several primate species

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Group-living animals can afford to spend less time on vigilance behavior towards potential predators than solitary animals (the “many eyes effect”: Pulliam 1973; Powell 1974). “social attention”, to track the whereabouts and the behavior of relevant conspecifics, such as offspring, potential mates or potentially aggressive group members (Keverne et al 1978; Altmann 1980; Caine and Marra 1988; Maestripieri 1993; Watts 1998; Cowlishaw 1998; Kutsukake 2006). Information gained by social vigilance may affect social and spatial group patterns. In this paper we use agent-based models to study the effect of employing social vigilance on spatial group patterns and the distribution of encounters among group members. More than 40 years ago, Chance (1956) and Chance and Jolly (1970) proposed the importance of a “social attention structure”, a property of the whole group which is evident in who attends to whom

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