Use of overlap zones among group-living primates

A test of the risk hypothesis

Richard Wrangham, Meg Crofoot, Rochelle Lundy, Ian Gilby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Overlap zones between home ranges of neighboring groups of primates are routinely reported to be under-used. However, little is known about how the size of overlap zones varies, or what factors influence their size. Here we use ranging data on three species of group-living primates to test the hypothesis that overlap zones are smaller or used less in species that are subject to a higher risk of lethal aggression in intergroup encounters. Redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) have a low risk of violence; white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) have an intermediate risk; chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) face a high risk of violent encounters with their neighbors. We calculated two indices of use of the overlap zone. First, we assessed the opportunity for groups to meet each other as the range overlap, i.e., the diameter of the home range in relation to the distance between neighboring ranges. Second, we compared the intensity with which groups used the overlap zone by calculating utilization curves that described how space-use patterns change with distance from a group's center of activity. Neither the overlap potentials nor utilization curves supported the risk hypothesis. There was little evidence of differences among the three species, all of which showed substantial under-use of overlap zones. Our data, which provide the first systematic comparison of overlap zones among primates, thus conform to previous reports suggesting that primate groups tend to have large overlap zones, regardless of the risk of violence. Since such zones are potentially responsible for carrying capacity being lower than expected by an ideal-free distribution, it is an important problem to understand why they are apparently widespread.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1599-1619
Number of pages21
JournalBehaviour
Volume144
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Primates
Homing Behavior
violence
Pan troglodytes
testing
Violence
Cercopithecus
Cebus
Conservation of Natural Resources
carrying capacity
Aggression
Haplorhini
monkeys
aggression
home range

Keywords

  • Aggression
  • Chimpanzee
  • Home range
  • Overlap zone
  • Primate
  • Redtail monkey
  • Risk hypothesis
  • Territory
  • White-faced capuchin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience

Cite this

Use of overlap zones among group-living primates : A test of the risk hypothesis. / Wrangham, Richard; Crofoot, Meg; Lundy, Rochelle; Gilby, Ian.

In: Behaviour, Vol. 144, No. 12, 01.12.2007, p. 1599-1619.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wrangham, Richard ; Crofoot, Meg ; Lundy, Rochelle ; Gilby, Ian. / Use of overlap zones among group-living primates : A test of the risk hypothesis. In: Behaviour. 2007 ; Vol. 144, No. 12. pp. 1599-1619.
@article{66a7272b48a64fa39e87d2c56d23fde2,
title = "Use of overlap zones among group-living primates: A test of the risk hypothesis",
abstract = "Overlap zones between home ranges of neighboring groups of primates are routinely reported to be under-used. However, little is known about how the size of overlap zones varies, or what factors influence their size. Here we use ranging data on three species of group-living primates to test the hypothesis that overlap zones are smaller or used less in species that are subject to a higher risk of lethal aggression in intergroup encounters. Redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) have a low risk of violence; white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) have an intermediate risk; chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) face a high risk of violent encounters with their neighbors. We calculated two indices of use of the overlap zone. First, we assessed the opportunity for groups to meet each other as the range overlap, i.e., the diameter of the home range in relation to the distance between neighboring ranges. Second, we compared the intensity with which groups used the overlap zone by calculating utilization curves that described how space-use patterns change with distance from a group's center of activity. Neither the overlap potentials nor utilization curves supported the risk hypothesis. There was little evidence of differences among the three species, all of which showed substantial under-use of overlap zones. Our data, which provide the first systematic comparison of overlap zones among primates, thus conform to previous reports suggesting that primate groups tend to have large overlap zones, regardless of the risk of violence. Since such zones are potentially responsible for carrying capacity being lower than expected by an ideal-free distribution, it is an important problem to understand why they are apparently widespread.",
keywords = "Aggression, Chimpanzee, Home range, Overlap zone, Primate, Redtail monkey, Risk hypothesis, Territory, White-faced capuchin",
author = "Richard Wrangham and Meg Crofoot and Rochelle Lundy and Ian Gilby",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1163/156853907782512092",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "1599--1619",
journal = "Behaviour",
issn = "0005-7959",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of overlap zones among group-living primates

T2 - A test of the risk hypothesis

AU - Wrangham, Richard

AU - Crofoot, Meg

AU - Lundy, Rochelle

AU - Gilby, Ian

PY - 2007/12/1

Y1 - 2007/12/1

N2 - Overlap zones between home ranges of neighboring groups of primates are routinely reported to be under-used. However, little is known about how the size of overlap zones varies, or what factors influence their size. Here we use ranging data on three species of group-living primates to test the hypothesis that overlap zones are smaller or used less in species that are subject to a higher risk of lethal aggression in intergroup encounters. Redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) have a low risk of violence; white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) have an intermediate risk; chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) face a high risk of violent encounters with their neighbors. We calculated two indices of use of the overlap zone. First, we assessed the opportunity for groups to meet each other as the range overlap, i.e., the diameter of the home range in relation to the distance between neighboring ranges. Second, we compared the intensity with which groups used the overlap zone by calculating utilization curves that described how space-use patterns change with distance from a group's center of activity. Neither the overlap potentials nor utilization curves supported the risk hypothesis. There was little evidence of differences among the three species, all of which showed substantial under-use of overlap zones. Our data, which provide the first systematic comparison of overlap zones among primates, thus conform to previous reports suggesting that primate groups tend to have large overlap zones, regardless of the risk of violence. Since such zones are potentially responsible for carrying capacity being lower than expected by an ideal-free distribution, it is an important problem to understand why they are apparently widespread.

AB - Overlap zones between home ranges of neighboring groups of primates are routinely reported to be under-used. However, little is known about how the size of overlap zones varies, or what factors influence their size. Here we use ranging data on three species of group-living primates to test the hypothesis that overlap zones are smaller or used less in species that are subject to a higher risk of lethal aggression in intergroup encounters. Redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) have a low risk of violence; white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) have an intermediate risk; chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) face a high risk of violent encounters with their neighbors. We calculated two indices of use of the overlap zone. First, we assessed the opportunity for groups to meet each other as the range overlap, i.e., the diameter of the home range in relation to the distance between neighboring ranges. Second, we compared the intensity with which groups used the overlap zone by calculating utilization curves that described how space-use patterns change with distance from a group's center of activity. Neither the overlap potentials nor utilization curves supported the risk hypothesis. There was little evidence of differences among the three species, all of which showed substantial under-use of overlap zones. Our data, which provide the first systematic comparison of overlap zones among primates, thus conform to previous reports suggesting that primate groups tend to have large overlap zones, regardless of the risk of violence. Since such zones are potentially responsible for carrying capacity being lower than expected by an ideal-free distribution, it is an important problem to understand why they are apparently widespread.

KW - Aggression

KW - Chimpanzee

KW - Home range

KW - Overlap zone

KW - Primate

KW - Redtail monkey

KW - Risk hypothesis

KW - Territory

KW - White-faced capuchin

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36049028037&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36049028037&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/156853907782512092

DO - 10.1163/156853907782512092

M3 - Article

VL - 144

SP - 1599

EP - 1619

JO - Behaviour

JF - Behaviour

SN - 0005-7959

IS - 12

ER -