Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 8, pp 1097–1107 | Cite as

Vigilance behaviour and fitness consequences: comparing a solitary foraging and an obligate group-foraging mammal

  • Aliza le Roux
  • Michael I. Cherry
  • Lorenz Gygax
  • Marta B. Manser
Original Paper

Abstract

Vigilance behaviour in gregarious species has been studied extensively, especially the relationship between individual vigilance and group size, which is often negative. Relatively little is known about the effect of conspecifics on vigilance in non-obligate social species or the influence of sociality itself on antipredator tactics. We investigated predator avoidance behaviour in the yellow mongoose, Cynictis penicillata, a group-living solitary forager, and compared it with a sympatric group-living, group-foraging herpestid, the meerkat, Suricata suricatta. In yellow mongooses, the presence of conspecifics during foraging—an infrequent occurrence—reduced their foraging time and success and increased individual vigilance, contrary to the classical group-size effect. Comparing the two herpestids, sociality did not appear to affect overt vigilance or survival rates but influenced general patterns of predator avoidance. Whereas meerkats relied on communal vigilance, costly vigilance postures, and auditory warnings against danger, yellow mongooses avoided predator detection by remaining close to safe refuges and increasing “low-cost” vigilance, which did not interfere with foraging. We suggest that foraging group size in herpestids is constrained by species-distinct vigilance patterns, in addition to habitat and prey preference.

Keywords

Group foraging Meerkats Solitary foraging Vigilance Yellow mongoose 

References

  1. Altman J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avenant NL, Nel JAJ (1992) Comparison of the diet of the yellow mongoose in a coastal and a Karoo area. S Afr J Wildl Res 22:89–93Google Scholar
  3. Balmforth ZE (2004) The demographics, spatial structure and behaviour of the yellow mongoose, Cynictis penicillata, with emphasis on cooperative breeding. PhD thesis. University of Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp G (2003) Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behav Processes 63:111–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaum N, Rossmanith E, Fleissner JF (2007) The conflicting importance of shrubby landscape structures for the reproductive success of the yellow mongoose (Cynictis penicillata). J Mammal 88(1):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein DT (2006) Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim Behav 71:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldwell GS (1986) Predation as a selective force on foraging herons: effects of plumage color and flocking. Auk 103:494–505Google Scholar
  8. Cavallini P (1993) Spatial organization of the yellow mongoose Cynictis penicillata in a coastal area. Ethol Ecol Evol 5:501–509Google Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, McIllrath GM, MacColl ADC, Kansky R, Chadwick P, Manser M, Skinner JD, Brotherton PNM (1999a) Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 68:672–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH, O’Riain MJ, Brotherton PNM, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Griffin AS, Manser M (1999b) Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science 284:1640–1644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Brotherton PNM, O’Riain MJ, Griffin AS, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Sharpe L, McIllrath GM (2001) Contributions to cooperative rearing in meerkats. Anim Behav 61:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, Russell AF, Sharpe LL, Young AJ, Balmforth Z, McIllrath GM (2002) Evolution and development of sex differences in cooperative behavior in meerkats. Science 297:253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 47:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolan SP, MacDonald DW (1996) Diet and foraging behaviour of group-living meerkats, Suricata suricatta, in the southern Kalahari. J Zool (Lond) 239:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earlé RA (1981) Aspects of the social and feeding behaviour of the yellow mongoose Cynictis penicillata (G. Cuvier). Mammalia 45:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 64:13–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser AS (2006) Prey detection and foraging strategies in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). Diploma thesis. University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorman ML (1979) Dispersion and foraging of the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae) relative to the evolution of social viverrids. J Zool (Lond) 187:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graw B, Manser MB (2007) The function of mobbing in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 74:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gursky SL, Nekaris KAI (2007) Primate anti-predator strategies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollén L, Manser MB (2006) The ontogeny of alarm call responses in meerkat pups: the role of age, sex and nearby conspecifics. Anim Behav 72:1345–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hollén LI, Clutton-Brock T, Manser MB (2008) Ontogenetic changes in alarm-call production and usage in meerkats (Suricata suricatta): adaptations or constraints? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub W, Solomon E (1999) The animal movement program. Alaska Biological Science Center, USGSGoogle Scholar
  26. Horrocks JA, Hunte W (1986) Sentinel behaviour in vervet monkeys: who sees whom first? Anim Behav 34:1566–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Illius AW, Fitzgibbon C (1994) Costs of vigilance in foraging ungulates. Anim Behav 47:481–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaby U, Lind J (2003) What limits predator detection in blue tits (Parus caeruleus): posture, task or orientation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:534–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kramer DL, McLaughlin RL (2001) The behavioral ecology of intermittent locomotion. Am Zool 41:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagos VO, Contreras LC, Meserve PL, Gutierrez JR, Jaksic FM (1995) Effects of predation risk on space use by small mammals: a field experiment with a neotropical rodent. Oikos 74:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazarus J, Symonds M (1992) Contrasting effects of protective and obstructive cover on avian vigilance. Anim Behav 43:519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. le Roux A, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2008) The audience effect in a facultatively social mammal, the yellow mongoose, Cynictis penicillata. Anim Behav 75:943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lima SL (1987) Distance to cover, visual obstructions, and vigilance in house sparrows. Behaviour 102:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch CD (1980) Ecology of the suricate, Suricata suricatta and yellow mongoose, Cynictis penicillata with special reference to their reproduction. Mem Nat Mus Bloemfontein 14:1–144Google Scholar
  35. Manaf P, Morato S, Oliveira ES (2003) Profile of wild neotropical spiny rats (Trinomys, Echimyidae) in two behavioral tests. Physiol Behav 79:129–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manser MB (1999) Response of foraging group members to sentinel calls in suricates, Suricata suricatta. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1013–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manser MB (2001) The acoustic structure of suricates’ alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:2315–2324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manser MB, Bell MB, Fletcher LB (2001) The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:2485–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McAdam AG, Kramer DL (1998) Vigilance as a benefit of intermittent locomotion in small mammals. Anim Behav 55:109–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray DL, Boutin S, O’Donoghue M, Nams VO (1995) Hunting behaviour of a sympatric felid and canid in relation to vegetative cover. Anim Behav 50:1203–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nel JAJ, Kok OB (1999) Diet and foraging group size in the yellow mongoose: a comparison with the suricate and the bat-eared fox. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:25–34Google Scholar
  42. Perez M, Li B, Tillier A, Cruaud A, Veron G (2006) Systematic relationships of the bushy-tailed and black-footed mongooses (genus Bdeogale, Herpestidae, Carnivora) based on molecular, chromosomal and morphological evidence. J Zoolog Syst Evol Res 44:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Quenette P-Y (1990) Functions of vigilance behaviour in mammals: a review. Acta Oecol 11:801–818Google Scholar
  45. Quenette P-Y, Gerard J-F (1992) From individual to collective vigilance in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Can J Zool 70:1632–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  48. Rasa OAE, Wenhold BA, Howard P, Marais A, Pallett J (1992) Reproduction in yellow mongoose revisited. S Afr J Zool 27:192–195Google Scholar
  49. Rood JP (1986) Ecology and social evolution in the mongooses. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, p 551Google Scholar
  50. Schradin C, Pillay N (2004) The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) from the succulent karoo, South Africa: a territorial group-living solitary forager with communal breeding and helpers at the nest. J Comp Psych 118:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snyder RL (1975) Some prey preference factors for a red-tailed hawk. Auk 92:547–552Google Scholar
  53. Taylor PJ, Meester J (1993) Cynictis penicillata. Mamm Sp 432:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tchabovsky AV, Krasnov BR, Khokhlova IS, Shenbort GI (2001a) The effect of vegetation cover on vigilance and foraging tactics in the fat sand rat Psammomys obesus. J Ethol 19:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tchabovsky AV, Popov SV, Krasnov BR (2001b) Intra- and interspecific variation in vigilance and foraging of two gerbillid rodents, Rhombomys opimus and Psammomys obesus: the effect of social environment. Anim Behav 62:965–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thalmeier W, Cook S (2002) How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: a simplified methodology. URL: http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2007
  57. Thornton A (2008) Early body conditions, time budgets and the acquisition of foraging skills in meerkats. Anim Behav 75:951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thornton A, McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313:227–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Treves A (2000) Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Anim Behav 60:711–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Staaden MJ (1994) Suricata suricatta. Mammal Sp 483:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Veron G, Colyn M, Dunham AE, Taylor PJ, Gambert P (2004) Molecular systematics and origin of sociality in mongooses (Herpestidae, Carnivora). Mol Phylogenet Evol 30:582–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wenhold BA, Rasa OAE (1994) Territorial marking in the yellow mongoose Cynictis penicillata: sexual advertisement for subordinates? Z Saugetierkd 59:129–138Google Scholar
  63. Wickler W (1985) Coordination of vigilance in bird groups. The “Watchman’s song” hypothesis. Z Tierpsychol 69:250–253Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aliza le Roux
    • 1
    • 4
  • Michael I. Cherry
    • 1
  • Lorenz Gygax
    • 2
  • Marta B. Manser
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and BotanyUniversity of StellenboschMatielandSouth Africa
  2. 2.Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and PigsAgroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ARTZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Animal Behaviour, Department of ZoologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations