Abstract In some group-living species that share food, interindividual disagreement on access to food is mediated by several types of negotiation, ranging from appeasing the current owner to reduce aggression and gain access to the food, to harassment where non-owners assert their presence and apply insistent pressure until owners give up their food. In some species, non-owners employ specific behaviours used in other social contexts during negotiation, which makes it challenging to discern their precise functions. The core prediction of the harassment hypothesis is that intense pressure by beggars makes owners abandon their food and leads to food monopolisation, which is not predicted by the appeasement hypothesis. In the African painted dog (Lycaon pictus), non-owners assume a low posture and produce high-pitched vocalisations — a suite of behaviours considered appeasement in non-feeding contexts. This study examined whether these behaviours, referred to collectively as putative appeasement behaviour (PAB), serve as appeasement in the context of feeding or whether they may also, or only, be used for harassment. To this end, we used behavioural experiments in captive parent–offspring or full sibling pairs. Individuals showed more frequent PAB when offered food that could not be easily shared (one vs. two bones). As aggression also only occurred under that condition, PAB seems to have a function in appeasement. However, we observed a positive effect of PAB on food monopolisation by PAB actors but not on co-feeding. Persistent PAB led to monopolisation, indicating that these behaviours serve as a form of harassment in feeding. We did not observe reciprocity between paired individuals, another possible form of food monopolisation besides appeasement and harassment. In conclusion, PAB in the African painted dog functions as both appeasement and harassment, and this highly tolerant species employs negotiation strategies in feeding.
Read full abstract