Author
Listed:
- Sean M Lee
- Gottfried Hohmann
- Elizabeth V Lonsdorf
- Barbara Fruth
- Carson M Murray
- Noa Pinter-Wollman
Abstract
Fission–fusion dynamics have evolved in a broad range of animal taxa and are thought to allow individuals to mitigate feeding competition. While this is the principal benefit of fission–fusion, few studies have evaluated its costs. We compared gregariousness, foraging budgets, and social budgets between lactating bonobos and chimpanzees from wild populations to evaluate potential costs. Both species exhibit fission–fusion dynamics, but chimpanzees, particularly in East African populations, appear to experience higher feeding competition than bonobos. We expected lactating chimpanzees to be less gregarious than lactating bonobos; reduced gregariousness should allow lactating chimpanzees to mitigate the costs of higher feeding competition without requiring more foraging effort. However, we expected the reduced gregariousness of lactating chimpanzees to limit their time available for affiliative interactions. Using long-term data from LuiKotale bonobos and Gombe chimpanzees, we found that lactating chimpanzees were indeed less gregarious than lactating bonobos, while feeding and travel time did not differ between species. Contrary to our predictions, lactating females did not differ in social interaction time, and lactating chimpanzees spent proportionately more time interacting with individuals other than their immature offspring. Our results indicate that lactating chimpanzees can maintain social budgets comparable to lactating bonobos despite reduced gregariousness and without incurring additional foraging costs. We discuss potential explanations for why lactating bonobos are more gregarious.
Suggested Citation
Sean M Lee & Gottfried Hohmann & Elizabeth V Lonsdorf & Barbara Fruth & Carson M Murray & Noa Pinter-Wollman, 2021.
"Gregariousness, foraging effort, and affiliative interactions in lactating bonobos and chimpanzees,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(1), pages 188-198.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:188-198.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:188-198.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.