Philopatric vervet monkey females are the focus of social attention rather independently of rank

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

Social learning has potential advantages over individual learning but one challenge is to identify valuable information. One possibility is to not randomly learn from any social partner but mainly from specific role models like for example the mother or high ranking group members. A potential mechanism for such directed social learning could be that individuals observe the actions of role models more often than of other group members. Field experiments showed that in vervet monkeys — a species with female philopatry — dominant females are more closely watched than dominant males in an artificial fruit-type social learning task. Here, we quantified social attention to males and females under natural conditions in six groups of vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops) at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve, South Africa. Using the focal sampling method, we quantified the frequencies with which all adult individuals were observed by other group members of known age class, rank, sex and degree of relatedness during foraging bouts and grooming interactions. We found that group members generally paid more attention to females than to males. This effect remained when we excluded matriline members from the analyses. Furthermore, we found that an individual’s rank did not affect the attention it received from other group members. These results suggest that philopatry may promote social attention independently of an individual’s rank and across situations.

Sections

References

BoydR.RichersonP.J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. — University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

CheneyD.L.SeyfarthR.M. (1990). How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. — University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Coussi-KorbelS.FragaszyD. (1995). On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. — Anim. Behav. 50: 1441-1453.

CroftD.P.JamesR.KrauseJ. (2007). Exploring animal social networks. — Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

de WaalF.B.M. (1982). Chimpanzee politics: power and sex among apes. — The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

de WaalF.B.M. (2001). The ape and the sushi master: cultural reflections of a primatologist. — Basic Books, New York, NY.

DuffyG.A.PikeT.W.LalandK.N. (2009). Size dependent directed social learning in nine-spined sticklebacks. — Anim. Behav. 78: 371-375.

EmeryN.J.LorinczE.N.PerrettD.I.OramM.W.BakerC.I. (1997). Gaze following and joint attention in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). — J. Comp. Psychol. 111: 286-293.

FruteauC.VoelklB.van DammeE.NoëR. (2009). Supply and demand determine the market value of food providers in wild vervet monkeys. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 12007-12012.

GiraldeauL.-A.ValoneT.J.TempletonJ.J. (2002). Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 357: 1559-1566.

HandleyL.L.J.PerrinN. (2007). Advances in our understanding of mammalian sex-biased dispersal. — Mol. Ecol. 16: 1559-1578.

HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF.J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. — Evol. Human Behav. 22: 165-196.

HoppittW.LalandK.N. (2008). Social processes influencing learning in animals: a review of the evidence. — Adv. Stud. Behav. 38: 105-165.

KawaiM. (1965). Newly-acquired pre-cultural behavior of the natural troop of Japanese monkeys on Koshima Islet. — Primates 6: 1-30.

KendalJ.R.RendellL.PikeT.W.LalandK.N. (2009). Nine-spined sticklebacks deploy a hill-climbing social learning strategy. — Behav. Ecol. 20: 238-244.

KendalR.GalefB.van SchaikC. (2010). Social learning research outside the laboratory: how and why?Learn. Behav. 38: 187-194.

KummerH. (1967). Dimensions of a comparative biology of primate groups. — Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 27: 357-366.

LalandK.N. (2004). Social learning strategies. — Learn. Behav. 32: 4-14.

LangenT.A. (1996). Social learning of a novel foraging skill by white-throated magpie-jays (Calocitta formosa, Corvidae): a field experiment. — Ethology 102: 157-166.

LefebvreL. (1986). Cultural diffusion of a novel food-finding behaviour in urban pigeons: an experimental field test. — Ethology 71: 295-304.

LonsdorfE. (2005). Sex differences in the development of termite-fishing skills in the wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, of Gombe National Park, Tanzania. — Anim. Behav. 70: 673-683.

MesoudiA. (2008). An experimental simulation of the ‘copy successful individuals’ cultural learning strategy: adaptive landscapes, producer-scrounger dynamics and informational access costs. — Evol. Hum. Behav. 29: 350-363.

NoëR. (2001). Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms. — In: Economics in nature ( HammersteinP., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.  93-118.

NicolC.PopeS. (1994). Social learning in small flocks of laying hens. — Anim. Behav. 47: 1289-1296.

NielsenM.SubiaulF.GalefB.G.Jr.ZentallT.R.WhitenA. (2012). Social learning in humans and non-humans animals: theoretical and empirical dissections. — J. Comp. Psychol. 126: 109-113.

OttoniE.B.de ResendeB.D.IzarP. (2005). Watching the best nutcrackers: what capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) know about others’ tool-using skills. — Anim. Cogn. 8: 215-219.

PerryS. (2009). Are non human primates likely to exhibit cultural capacities like those of humans? — In: The question of animal culture ( LalandK.N.GalefB.G., eds). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p.  247-268.

PriceE.E.LambethS.P.SchapiroS.J.WhitenA. (2009). A potent effect of observational learning on chimpanzee tool construction. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 276: 3377-3383.

RangeF.HuberL. (2007). Attention in common marmosets: implication for social learning experiments. — Anim. Behav. 73: 1033-1041.

RangeF.HornL.BurgnyarT.GadjonK.G.HuberL. (2008). Social attention in keas, dogs and human children. — Anim. Cogn. 12: 181-192.

RichersonP.J.BoydR. (2005). Not by genes alone. — University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

ScheidC.RangeF.BugnyarT. (2007). When, what and whom to watch? Quantifying attention in ravens (Corvus corax) and jackdaws (Corvus monedula). — J. Comp. Psychol. 121: 380-386.

SchinoG.AureliF. (2009). The relative roles of kinship and reciprocity in explaining primate altruism. — Ecol. Lett. 12: 1-6.

SilkJ.B.AlbertsS.C.AltmannJ. (2003). Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. — Science 302: 1231-1234.

SterckE.H.M.WattsD.P.van SchaikC.P. (1997). The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41: 291-309.

TaborskyB.OlivieraR.F. (2012). Social competence: an evolutionary approach. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 679-688.

ThorntonA.MalapertA. (2008). The rise and fall of an arbitrary tradition: an experiment with wild meerkats. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 276: 1269-1276.

van de WaalE.BsharyR. (2010). Contact with human facilities appears to enhance technical skills in wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops). — Folia Primatol. 81: 282-291.

van de WaalE.BsharyR. (2011). Social learning abilities of wild vervet monkeys in a two-step task artificial fruit experiment. — Anim. Behav. 81: 433-438.

van de WaalE.ReneveyN.FavreC.M.BsharyR. (2010). Selective attention to philopatric models causes directed social learning in wild vervet monkeys. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 277: 2105-2111.

van de WaalE.KrützenM.HulaJ.GoudetJ.BsharyR. (2012). Similarity in food cleaning techniques within matrilines in wild vervet monkeys. — PLoS ONE 7: e35694, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0035694.

van Lawick-GoodallJ. (1973). Cultural elements in a chimpanzee community. — In: Precultural primate behaviour ( MenzelE.W., ed.). Karger, Basel, p.  144-184.

WeyT.BlumsteinD.T.ShenW.JordánF. (2008). Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. — Anim. Behav. 75: 333-344.

WhitenA.HindeR.A.LalandK.N.StringerC.B. (2011). Culture evolves. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 366: 938-948.

WranghamR.W. (1980). An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. — Behaviour 75: 262-300.

YeamanS.BsharyR.LehmannL. (2011). The effect of innovation and sexspecific migration on neutral cultural differentiation. — Anim. Behav. 82: 101-112.

Figures

  • Percentage of attention (median and quartiles) received by target females (with or without own offspring, N=18) and males (N=9) during foraging context (p<0.05).

    View in gallery
  • Percentage of attention (median and quartiles) received by target females (with or without own offspring, N=18) and males (N=9) during grooming context (p<0.05; ns, p>0.05).

    View in gallery
  • Percentage of attention (median and quartiles) received by dominant females (with or without own offspring, N=6) and subordinate females (with or without own offspring, N=13) during foraging context (ns, p>0.05).

    View in gallery
  • Percentage of attention (median and quartiles) received by dominant females (with or without own offspring, N=6) and subordinate females (with or without own offspring, N=13) during grooming context (ns, p>0.05).

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 13 13 9
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0