The roles of food quality and sex in chimpanzee sharing behavior (Pan troglodytes)

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Both wild and captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) share food with non-relatives. Researchers have proposed several hypotheses to explain this behavior, including ‘food for sex’, ‘food for grooming or agonistic support’, and ‘sharing under pressure’. We examined food sharing in two captive groups of socially-housed chimpanzees. In contrast to previous captive studies, which only examined transfers of low-quality foods, we conducted seven trials with high-quality food and seven with low-quality food for each group to directly compare transfers of different food qualities. We recorded how male chimpanzees shared food, including active transfers, passive transfers, and co-feeding. We also noted all instances of copulations, female estrous states, benign attempts to access food (termed ‘perseverance’), and aggressive attempts (termed ‘harassment’) to examine whether any of these factors influenced food sharing. Male food possessors shared at the same rate in both food quality conditions, but seemingly for different reasons, indicating that food quality may affect the exchange of social benefits in chimpanzees. In the low-quality condition, there was an interaction with rank and perseverance: while low- and middle-ranking females received more food the more they persevered, high-ranking females received more food without perseverance and gained relatively little benefit from persevering. In the high-quality condition, there was an interaction between copulations and perseverance: females who copulated with the male food possessor received more food during that trial with less perseverance. Non-copulating females received more transfers the more they persevered. This result was only observed in the short-term — copulations over the previous year were not correlated with food transfers. Further, the copulations observed here were unusual for these chimpanzees in that they were not confined to peak fertility, suggesting a non-conceptive function for copulations in chimpanzees. Copulations in this study may have functioned to reduce tension and increase short-term tolerance, allowing females better access to food.

The roles of food quality and sex in chimpanzee sharing behavior (Pan troglodytes)

in Behaviour

Sections

References

BoeschC. (1994). Cooperative hunting in wild chimpanzees. — Anim. Behav. 48: 653-667.

BoeschC.BoeschH. (1989). Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in Taï National Park. — Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78: 547-573.

DahlJ.F.NadlerR.D.CollinsD.C. (1991). Monitoring the ovarian cycles of Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus: a comparative approach. — Am. J. Primatol. 24: 195-209.

DeschnerT.HeistermannM.HodgesK.BoeschC. (2004). Female sexual swelling size, timing of ovulation, and male behavior in wild West African chimpanzees. — Horm. Behav. 46: 204-215.

EverittB. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. — Chapman & HallLondon.

FeistnerA.T.C.McGrewW.C. (1989). Food-sharing in primates: a critical review. — In: Perspectives in primate biologyVol. 3 ( SethP.K.SethS. eds). Today & Tomorrow’s Printers and PublishersNew Delhi p.  21-36.

GilbyI.C. (2006). Meat sharing among the Gombe chimpanzees: harassment and reciprocal exchange. — Anim. Behav. 71: 953-963.

GilbyI.C.EberlyL.E.PinteaL.PuseyA.E. (2006). Ecological and social influences on the hunting behaviour of wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. — Anim. Behav. 72: 169-180.

GilbyI.C.EberlyL.E.WranghamR.W. (2008). Economic profitability of social predation among wild chimpanzees: individual variation promotes cooperation. — Anim. Behav. 75: 351-360.

GilbyI.C.ThompsonM.E.RuaneJ.D.WranghamR.W. (2010). No evidence of short-term exchange of meat-for-sex among chimpanzees. — J. Hum. Evol. 59: 44-53.

GomesC.M.BoeschC. (2009). Wild chimpanzees exchange meat for sex on a long-term basis. — PLoS One 4: e5116.

GoodallJ. (1963). Feeding behaviour of wild chimpanzees: a preliminary report. — Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 10: 9-48.

HockingsK.HumleT.AndersonJ.R.BiroD.SousaC.OhashiG.MatsuzawaT. (2007). Chimpanzees share forbidden fruit. — PLoS One 2: e886.

HornerV.CarterJ.D.SuchakM.de WaalF.B.M. (2011). Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 13847-13851.

JaeggiA.V.van SchaikC.P. (2011). The evolution of food sharing in primates. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 2125-2140.

JaeggiA.V.de GrootE.StevensJ.M.G.van SchaikC.P. (2013). Mechanisms of reciprocity: testing for short-term contingency of grooming and food sharing in bonobos and chimpanzees. — Evol. Hum. Behav. 34: 69-77.

MitaniJ.C.WattsD.P. (1999). Demographic influences on the hunting behavior of chimpanzees. — Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 109: 439-454.

MitaniJ.C.WattsD.P. (2001). Why do chimpanzees hunt and share meat?Anim. Behav. 61: 915-924.

MullerM.N.MitaniJ.C. (2005). Conflict and cooperation in wild chimpanzees. — Adv. Stud. Behav. 35: 275-331.

Newton-FisherN.E. (2007). Chimpanzee hunting behaviour. — In: Handbook of physical anthropology ( HenkeW.RotheH.TattersallI. eds). SpringerNew York, NY p.  1295-1320.

NishidaT. (1970). Social behavior and relationship among wild chimpanzees of the Mahali Mountains. — Primates 11: 47-87.

NishidaT.HasegawaT.HayakiH.TakahataY.UeharaS. (1992). Meat-sharing as a coalition strategy by an alpha male chimpanzee? — In: Topics in primatologyVol. 1: human origins ( NishidaT.McGrewW.MarlerP.PickfordM.de WaalF.B.M. eds). University of Tokyo PressTokyo p.  159-174.

ParishA.R. (1994). Sex and food control in the “uncommon chimpanzee”: how bonobo females overcome a phylogenetic legacy of male dominance. — Ethol. Sociobiol. 15: 157-179.

PruetzJ.D.LindshieldS. (2012). Plant-food and tool transfer among savanna chimpanzees at Fongoli, Senegal. — Primates 53: 133-145.

StanfordC.B.WallisJ.MpongoE.GoodallJ. (1994). Hunting decisions in wild chimpanzees. — Behaviour 131: 1-2.

StevensJ.R. (2004). The selfish nature of generosity: harassment and food sharing in primates. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 271: 451-456.

TelekiG. (1973). The predatory behavior of wild chimpanzees. — Bucknell University PressLewisburg, PA p.  232.

VogelE. (2005). Rank differences in energy intake rates in white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus: the effects of contest competition. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 333-344.

de WaalF.B.M. (1987). Tension regulation and nonreproductive functions of sex in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). — Natl. Geogr. Res. 3: 318-335.

de WaalF.B.M. (1989). Food sharing and reciprocal obligations among chimpanzees. — J. Hum. Evol. 18: 438-459.

de WaalF.B.M. (1995). Bonobo sex and society. — Sci. Am. 272: 82-88.

de WaalF.B.M. (1997). The chimpanzee’s service economy: food for grooming. — Evol. Hum. Behav. 18: 375-386.

de WaalF.B.M.van RoosmalenA. (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 5: 55-66.

WattsD.P.MitaniJ.C. (2002). Hunting behavior of chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. — Int. J. Primatol. 23: 1-28.

WinterhalderB. (1996). Social foraging and the behavioral ecology of intra group resource transfers. — Evol. Anthropol. 5: 46-57.

WranghamR. (1975). Behavioural ecology of chimpanzees in Gombe National Park. — Ph.D. thesis University of Cambridge Cambridge.

YerkesR.M. (1941). Conjugal contrasts among chimpanzees. — J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 36: 175-199.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    The effect of rank and perseverance on food transfers. High-ranking females received more food without perseverance than middle- and low-ranking females. Increasing perseverance did not result in much added benefit for high-ranking females. In contrast, the more a low- or middle-ranking female persevered, the more food she obtained. The lines are trends based on the raw data.

  • View in gallery

    The effect of sex and perseverance on food transfers. Females who had sex received more food transfers without perseverance than females who did not copulate. Females who did not copulate during the trial received more food the more they persevered. The lines are trends based on the raw data.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 60 60 4
Full Text Views 53 53 35
PDF Downloads 4 4 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0