Evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate - PubMed (original) (raw)

Evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate

Marcela E Benítez et al. Sci Rep. 2017.

Abstract

In aggressive interactions, game theory predicts that animals should assess an opponent's condition relative to their own prior to escalation or retreat. Despite the benefits of such mutual assessment, few studies have been able to reject simpler assessment strategies. Here we report evidence for mutual assessment in a wild primate. Gelada (Theropithecus gelada) males have conspicuous loud calls that may function as a signal of male quality. "Leader" males with harems putatively use loud calls to deter challenges from non-reproductive "bachelor" males. By contrast, leader males pose no threat to each other and congregate in large groups for a dilution effect against bachelors. In playback experiments and natural observations, gelada males responded to loud calls according to both their own and their opponent's attributes. Although primates routinely classify others relative to themselves using individual attributes, this represents some of the first direct evidence for mutual assessment in primate signaling contests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Predictions for bachelor male (a) and leader male (b) responses to low- and high-quality simulated loud calls for three assessment strategies: self-assessment, opponent-only assessment, and mutual assessment.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Subject responses (Mean of factor scores + SEM) to simulated high and low quality loud calls from bachelors, leaders, and females. (a) Factor 1 is a composite score where larger values indicate a stronger “approach” response. (b) Factor 2 is a composite score where larger values indicate a stronger “look” response. See text for details.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Status difference for males in overall response time to high- and low-quality calls. Figure 3 represents both (a) within subject differences for 20 bachelors and 20 leaders, and (b) mean total response time (+SEM) to different call types.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Overall response time (s) to the high-quality playback call in relation to the subjects own call quality.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Maynard Smith J, Price GR. The Logic of Animal Conflict. Nature. 1973;246:15–18. doi: 10.1038/246015a0. - DOI
    1. Enquist M, Leimar O. Evolution of fighting behaviour: Decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J. Theor. Biol. 1983;102:387–410. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(83)90376-4. - DOI
    1. Briffa M, Elwood RW. Difficulties remain in distinguishing between mutual and self-assessment in animal contests. Anim. Behav. 2009;77:759–762. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.010. - DOI
    1. Elwood RW, Arnott G. Understanding how animals fight with Lloyd Morgan’s canon. Anim. Behav. 2012;84:1095–1102. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.035. - DOI
    1. Taylor PW, Elwood RW. The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim. Behav. 2003;65:1195–1202. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2169. - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources