The disease costs of sociality have largely been understood through the link between group size and transmission. Anderson, C. M. (1986). Primate social groups are often complex and permanent and group members perform most of their activities within the confines of their group. Barton, R. A. Reproductive behavior of free-ranging. Each of, them alone is insufﬁcient to characterize adequately a social system com-, prehensively because they are shaped by different selection pressures, even, though they are not entirely independent of one another. the spatial associations and social relationships that individuals engage in. Hence, we must ask why some males opt to live permanently with a sin-, gle female, especially in primates with relatively long interbirth intervals, This has been the traditional formulation of this question, focusing on the. T, correspondance between the social organization and mating system of a. society or taxon but several facts argue against simple equation of them. © 2017, 2011, 2007, 2003, 2000 K. B. Strier. In Bernstein, mangabeys: A preliminary review. examine the evolutionary forces that have generated and shaped it. After all, deﬁnitions and characteristics, of social systems focus on traits of groups and not on individuals, the latter, of which are the targets of natural and sexual selection (Goss-Custard, relates ﬁtness-relevant behavior of individuals, such as foraging, predator, avoidance, mating and parental care, to the deﬁning characters of a social, This link is provided by the socio-ecological model (Crook, 1970; Emlen, systems represent emergent properties of individual behavioral interactions, conspeciﬁcs, in turn, is probably largely shaped by ecological factors, the distribution of risks and resources in the environment and their interac-, tions (Elgar, 1986; Emlen, 1994; Mangel, 1990; T, social organization and demographic conditions created by individual be-, haviors also impose constraints on the behavioral options of these same, individuals, leading to complex feedback loops (J, Males and females are treated separately in the model because their ﬁt-, ness is limited by different factors ultimately related to sexual differences in, potential reproductive rates and the resulting intersexual conﬂict (Clutton-, Brock and Parker, 1992, 1995). However, it is often impossible to say which relation-, ships actually hold in a particular example, especially since they are usually, not exclusive. Socioecology of baboons: The interface of male and female strategies, Barton, R. A., Byrne, R., and Whiten, A. T, can be used to modify their spatial distribution and especially the degree, of estrous synchrony (e.g., Zinner and Deschner, 2000; Zinner, Additional mechanisms, such as female choice, cations of the fertile period of the cycle assure that sexual coercion of females, is minimized and that females largely determine the identity and number of, their mates (Nunn, 1999b; van Noordwijk and van Schaik, 2000; van Schaik, female primates appear to be aimed at confusing paternal certainty, reducing the risk of infanticide (van Noordwijk and van Schaik, 2000). Infanticide is more likely to occur in species with slow life histories because of longer nursing times and, in particular, among species characterized by long juvenile periods and long duration of lactation relative to gestation, such as gibbons and humans, for example. potential consequences of pair-living for the mating system. PRIMATE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 3. aspects and the special role of adult males. Therefore, the acquisition of female followers appears inconsistent with a male's strategy for reproducing many genes in the Gore’s experiment serves as an important, reminder that immediate and evolutionary levels of responses should not be, can help to identify the breadth and limits of social reaction norms. A comparison of anubis baboons, Nishida, T., and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. (1987). While numerous sociocultural factors influence this variation, comparative primate and human biological and cultural evidence also suggests that flexible mixed-feeding may be a human evolutionary norm. as well as some important consequences, remain virtually unexplored. (1994). An evaluation of the roles of predation rate and pre-. provides great potential for future research. ��@x�PS�>*�Yd� XH�֦���1=����j�j}����X}g*Ӗ�� �1EǏ�=���ٔEһ: $@�C��YKL0W�� ,�� T�L�����k�c:��lJ4L�Q��h'nc�wU6;S7 �*$m���h�բ6fE�z"*�0�w�\�ji�Ґ�T�
'�"sM�yPl88�X��v�Dl���o^a��6���\�k̔�u|��? Whether related females form coali-, tions to defend access to preferred food sources against other such, coalitions (Wrangham, 1980) or intergroup feeding competition predomi-, nates because groups form in response to predation risk (van Schaik and, van Hooff, 1983), each female in a group-living species will experience a mix. Whitehead, H. (1997). Our synthetic disease experiments reveal that social network organization can mitigate the disease costs of group living for socially hierarchical species when the pathogen is highly transmissible. "# CHAPTER 7 Second, the link between behavior and life-history is a key pillar in, the evolution of social systems. All rights reserved. These species are interesting because they may, represent examples of independent transitions from a solitary to a pair-living, social organization (Kappeler, 1999c), as also evidenced by the occasional. take-overs: “deceptive” swellings as a possible female counter-strategy against infanticide. Di Fiore, A. In particular, the existence of matriarchies, deﬁned as clusters of, closely-related females, has been postulated or assumed without genetic, form sleeping groups. However, now there, is consensus that predation rate is not suitable for such analyses because it, ignores the effects of various countermeasures already in place to reduce, the risk (Hill and Dunbar, 1998a; Hill and Lee, 1998; J. estimates of the underlying predation risk are much more difﬁcult to obtain. Primate Behavioral Ecology 5th Edition also examines how anthropogenic activities are negatively impacting primate populations, including a thorough analysis of behavioural plasticity and its implications. Using a broad compar, ative approach holds the potential to identify and to measure the actual. Sociality in a nocturnal “solitary” prosimian: Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1974). An important notion that may contribute to the improvement of the operationalization level as regards the comparison between the two types of macroevolution is the one that we suggested some time ago – the social aromorphosis (that was developed as a counterpart to the notion of biological aromorphosis well established within Russian evolutionary biology). predictable, and the evolutionary relationships are difﬁcult to disentangle. A demographic analysis of male life history and social structure of, Intergroup calls and spacing. Social structure refers to the pattern of social interactions and the re-, sulting relationships among the members of a society, These deﬁnitions and the resulting categories focus on adult males and, females and do not consider infants and juveniles, presumably because of the, historical focus on mating systems (Crook and Gartlan, 1966), even though, they obviously also contribute importantly to a social structure.