Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1159–1169 | Cite as

Mandrills represent their own dominance hierarchy on a cardinal, not ordinal, scale

  • Gabriele SchinoEmail author
  • Francesca Lasio
Original Paper

Abstract

Attempts to measure dominance relationships using cardinal, rather than ordinal ranks have a long history. Nevertheless, it is still unclear if cardinal dominance ranks have an impact on the life of animals. In particular, no information is available on how individual group living animals represent their own dominance hierarchy. This can be investigated testing whether cardinal rank differences affect how animals interact with different group mates. In this study, we evaluated how mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) interacted with group mates in relation to differences in cardinal ranks while controlling for differences in ordinal ranks. Mandrills were more likely both to avoid an approaching group mate and to direct their grooming to a group mate when differences in cardinal ranks were larger (controlling for differences in ordinal ranks). These results suggest mandrills represent their own dominance hierarchy as based on a cardinal, not an ordinal, scale.

Keywords

Dominance hierarchy Cardinal rank Social cognition Mandrillus sphynx 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Rome zoo (Bioparco) for allowing us to study their mandrill colony and Giorgio Manzi for his support. Kim Bard and an anonymous reviewer provided valuable comments.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1308_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 83 kb)
10071_2019_1308_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 21 kb)

References

  1. Abernethy KA, White LJT, Wickings EJ (2002) Hordes of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): extreme group size and seasonal male presence. J Zool 258:131–137.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836902001267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens A, Hansen CB, Schaffer ME (2018) LASSOPACK: Stata module for lasso, square-root lasso, elastic net, ridge, adaptive lasso estimation and cross-validation. In: Statistical Software Components S458458, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 19 Sep 2018Google Scholar
  3. Allison PD (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage, Los AngelesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aureli F, Schino G (2019) Social complexity from within: how individuals experience the structure and organization of their groups. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett L, Henzi SP (2001) The utility of grooming in baboon troops. In: Noë R, van Hoof JARAM, Hammerstein P (eds) Economics in nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett L, Henzi SP, Weingrill T, Lycett JE, Hill RA (1999) Market forces predict grooming reciprocity in female baboons. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 266:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett L, Gaynor D, Henzi SP (2002) A dynamic interaction between aggression and grooming reciprocity among female chacma baboons. Anim Behav 63:1047–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belloni A, Chen D, Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2012) Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain. Econometrica 80:2369–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergman TJ, Beehner JC, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2003) Hierarchical classification by rank and kinship in baboons. Science 302:1234–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd R, Silk JB (1983) A method for assigning cardinal dominance ranks. Anim Behav 31:45–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80172-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brockmeyer T, Kappeler PM, Willaume E, Benoit L, Mboumba S, Charpentier MJE (2015) Social organization and space use of a wild mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) group. Am J Primatol 77:1036–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase ID (1985) The sequential analysis of aggressive acts during hierarchy formation: an application of the ‘jigsaw puzzle’ approach. Anim Behav 33:86–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(85)80122-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1986) The recognition of social alliances by vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 34:1722–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Côté SD (2000) Dominance hierarchies in female mountain goats: stability, aggressiveness and determinants of rank. Behaviour 137:1541–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Vries H (1995) An improved test of linearity in dominance hierarchies containing unknown or tied relationships. Anim Behav 50:1375–1389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80053-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Vries H, Stevens JMG, Vervaecke H (2006) Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Anim Behav 71:585–592.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Waal FBM (1991) Complementary methods and convergent evidence in the study of primate social cognition. Behaviour 118:297–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dormann CF et al (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engh AL, Siebert ER, Greenberg DA, Holekamp KE (2005) Patterns of alliance formation and postconflict aggression indicate spotted hyaenas recognize third-party relationships. Anim Behav 69:209–217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinde RA (1976) Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man 11:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaburu SSK, Newton-Fisher NE (2015) Egalitarian despots: hierarchy steepness, reciprocity and the grooming-trade model in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Anim Behav 99:61–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marler P (1956) Studies of fighting in chaffinches. (3). Proximity as a cause of aggression. Br J Anim Behav 4:23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5601(56)80012-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Massen JJM, Pašukonis A, Schmidt J, Bugnyar T (2014) Ravens notice dominance reversals among conspecifics within and outside their social group. Nat Commun 5:3679.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4679 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Montero D, Lalumera G, Izquierdo MS, Caballero MJ, Saroglia M, Tort L (2009) Establishment of dominance relationships in gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata juveniles during feeding: effects on feeding behaviour, feed utilization and fish health. J Fish Biol 74:790–805.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02161.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mooney CZ, Duval RD (1993) Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Sage, Los AngelesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noë R, van Schaik CP, van Hooff JARAM (1991) The market effect: an explanation for pay-off asymmetries among collaborating animals. Ethology 87:97–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1991.tb01192.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41:673–690.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raftery AE (1995) Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociol Methodol 25:111–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rebout N, Desportes C, Thierry B (2017) Resource partitioning in tolerant and intolerant macaques. Aggress Behav 43:513–520.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21709 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanchez-Tojar A, Schroeder J, Farine DR (2018) A practical guide for inferring reliable dominance hierarchies and estimating their uncertainty. J Anim Ecol 87:594–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schino G (2001) Grooming, competition and social rank among female primates: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 62:265–271.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schino G (2007) Grooming and agonistic support: a meta-analysis of primate reciprocal altruism. Behav Ecol 18:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schino G, Aureli F (2008) Trade-offs in primate grooming reciprocation: testing behavioural flexibility and correlated evolution. Biol J Linn Soc 95:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schino G, Lasio F (2018) Competition for grooming partners and interference in affiliation among female mandrills. Ethology 124:600–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schino G, Sciarretta M (2016) Patterns of social attention in mandrills, Mandrillus sphinx. Int J Primatol 37:752–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schino G, Tiddi B, Polizzi di Sorrentino E (2006) Simultaneous classification by rank and kinship in Japanese macaques. Anim Behav 71:1069–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmid VS, de Vries H (2013) Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: an improved algorithm for the I&SI method. Anim Behav 86:1097–1105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seyfarth RM (1977) A model of social grooming among adult female monkeys. J Theor Biol 65:671–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seyfarth RM (1981) Do monkeys rank each other? Behav Brain Sci 4:447–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silk JB (1999) Male bonnet macaques use information about third-party rank relationships to recruit allies. Anim Behav 58:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. StataCorp (2015) Stata: Release 14. Statistical software. StataCorp, College StationGoogle Scholar
  43. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 58:267–288Google Scholar
  44. Tiddi B, Aureli F, Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Janson CH, Schino G (2011) Grooming for tolerance? Two mechanisms of exchange in wild tufted capuchin monkeys. Behav Ecol 22:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van de Pol M, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velleman PF, Welsch RE (1981) Efficient computing of regression diagnostics. Am Stat 35:234–242Google Scholar
  47. Walters JR, Seyfarth RM (1986) Conflict and cooperation. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 306–317Google Scholar
  48. Wiley RH, Hartnett SA (1980) Mechanisms of spacing in groups of juncos: measurement of behavioural tendencies in social situations. Anim Behav 28:1005–1016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80089-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Biologia AmbientaleSapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations