International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 369–387

Social Relationships among Males in Multimale Siamang Groups

Article

Abstract

I quantified social and spatial interactions among adults in 4 multimale siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) groups to evaluate the importance of aggression and avoidance in mediating male-male relationships. Actual genetic relationships among adults are unknown, but available mitochondrial data suggest that in 3 of 4 groups, neither male was the offspring or maternal sibling of the female, whereas in the fourth group, a matrilineal relationship between the female and 1 adult male was not excluded. Rates of aggression involving male-male dyads were very low. One male-female dyad maintained closer spatial cohesion than those of other adult dyads in 3 of 4 groups. Nonetheless, all adult males spent substantial percentages of their time ≤20 m from other adults in their groups. The percentages of time that male-male dyads spent in social grooming interactions did not differ from those of male-female dyads. In 3 groups, both males copulated with the group female. While previous studies have reported high rates of aggression between adult males and subadult male group members in siamangs, my results suggest that male-male relationships in multimale groups at Way Canguk were relatively harmonious. Acceptance of multimale grouping (and in some cases sexual polyandry) suggests that the benefits outweigh the costs under some circumstances. If there was a genetic relationship between males, then tolerance of delayed dispersal and copulation with the adult female may function as a form of parental investment. Males may also benefit from multimale grouping via enhanced territorial defense or reduced costs of mate defense.

Keywords

aggression flexible grouping and mating gibbon polyandry 

References

  1. Ahsan, M. F. (1995). Fighting between two females for a male in the Hoolock gibbon. International Journal of Primatology, 16, 731–737.Google Scholar
  2. Ahsan, M. F. (2000). Socio-ecology of the Hoolock gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) in two forests of Bangladesh. In The Apes: Challenges for the 21st century. Brookfield Zoo, May 10–13, 2000, Conference Proceedings. Chicago Zoological Park, Chicago, pp. 286–299.Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett, T. Q. (2003). Intragroup and intergroup social interactions in white-handed gibbons. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bicca-Marquez, J. C., Garber, P. A., & Azevedo-Lopes, M. A. O. (2002). Evidence of three resident adult male group members in a species of monogamous primate, the red titi monkey (Callicebus cupreus). Mammalia, 66, 138–142.Google Scholar
  5. Brockelman, W. Y., Reichard, U., Treesucon, U., & Raemaekers, J. (1998). Dispersal, pair formation and social structure in gibbons (Hylobates lar). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 42, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockelman, W. Y., & Srikosamatara, S. (1984). Maintenance and evolution of social structure in gibbons. In J. Prueschoft, D. J. Chivers, W. Y. Brockelman, & N. Creel (Eds.), The lesser apes: Evolution, behaviour, and biology (pp. 498–533). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, C. R. (1940). A field study in Siam of the behavior and social relations of the gibbon (Hylobates lar). Comparative Psychology Monographs, 16, 1–201.Google Scholar
  8. Chivers, D. J. (1974). The siamang in Malaya: a field study of a primate in tropical rain forest. In H. Kuhn, W. P. Luckett, C. R. Noback, A. H. Schultz, D. Stark, & F. S. Szalay (Eds.), Contributions to primatology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–335). Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  9. Chivers, D. J. (2000). The swinging singing apes: fighting for food and family in far-east forests. In The Apes: Challenges for the 21st Century. Brookfield Zoo, May 10–13, 2000, Conference Proceedings. Chicago Zoological Park, Chicago, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  10. Chivers, D. J., & Raemaekers J. J. (1980). Long-term changes in behaviour. In D. J. Chivers (Ed.), Malayan forest primates: Ten years’ study in tropical rain forest (pp. 209–258). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Creel, S. R., & Creel, N. M. (2002). The African dog: Behaviour, ecology and conservation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Emlen, S. T. (1982a). The evolution of helping I. an ecological constraints model. American Naturalist, 119, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emlen, S. T. (1982b). The evolution of helping II. the role of behavioral conflict. American Naturalist, 119, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Duque, E., & Huntington, C. (2002). Disappearances of individuals from social groups have implications for understanding natal dispersal in monogamous owl monkeys (Aotus azarai). American Journal of Primatology, 57, 219–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez-Duque, E., Mason, W. A., & Mendoza, S. P. (1997). Effects of duration of separation on responses to mates and strangers in the monogamous titi monkey (Callicebus moloch). American Journal of Primatology, 43, 225–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuentes, A. (2000). Hylobatid communities: Changing views on pair bonding and social organization in hominoids. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 48, 86–88.Google Scholar
  17. Geissmann, T. (1999). Duet songs of the siamang, Hylobates syndactylus: II. Testing the pair-bonding hypothesis during a partner exchange. Behaviour, 136, 1005–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geissmann, T., & Orgeldinger, M. (2000). The relationship between duet songs and pair bonds in siamangs, Hylobates syndactylus. Animal Behavior, 60, 805–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gittins, S. P. (1979). The behaviour and ecology of the agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis). Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  20. Gittins, S. P. (1980). Territorial behavior in the agile gibbon. International Journal of Primatology, 1, 381–399.Google Scholar
  21. Gittins, S. P., & Raemaekers, J. J. (1980). Siamang, lar and agile gibbons. In D. J. Chivers (Ed.), Malayan forest primates: Ten years’ study in tropical rain forest (pp. 63–105). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goldizen, A., Mendelson, J., van Vlaardingen, M., & Terborgh, J. (1996). Saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis) reproductive strategies: Evidence from a thirteen-year study of a marked population. American Journal of Primatology, 38, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinde, R. A. (1983). Primate social relationships: An integrated approach. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Howell, N., Smejkal, C. B., Mackey, D. A., Chinnery, P. F., Turnbull, D. M., & Herrnstadt, C. (2003). The pedigree rate of sequence divergence in the human mitochondrial genome: There is a difference between phylogenetic and pedigree rates. American Journal of Human Genetics, 72, 659–667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinnaird, M. F., & O’Brien, T. G. (2005). Fast foods of the forest: The influence of figs on primates and hornbills across Wallace’s line. In J. L. Dew & J. P. Boubli (Eds.), Tropical fruits and frugivores. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Kinnaird, M. F., O’Brien, T. G., Nurcahyo, A., & Prasetyaningrum, M. (2002). Inter-group interactions and the role of calling among siamangs. XIXth Congress of the International Primatological Society. August 4–9, 2002, Beijing China.Google Scholar
  27. Lappan, S. (2005). Biparental care and male reproductive strategies in Siamangs (Symphalangus syndactylus) in Southern Sumatra, Indonesia. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar
  28. Lappan, S. (2007). Patterns of dispersal in Sumatran Siamangs (Symphalangus syndactylus): Preliminary mtDNA evidence suggests more frequent male than female dispersal to adjacent groups. American Journal of Primatology, 69, 692–698.Google Scholar
  29. Leighton, D. R. (1987). Gibbons: Territoriality and monogamy. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 135–145). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mayeaux, D. J., Mason, W. A., & Mendoza, S. P. (2002). Developmental changes in responsiveness to parents and unfamiliar adults in a monogamous monkey (Callicebus moloch). American Journal of Primatology, 58, 71–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitani, J. C. (1984). The behavioral regulation of monogamy in gibbons (Hylobates muelleri). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 20, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitani, J. C. (1987). Territoriality and monogamy among agile gibbons (Hylobates agilis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 20, 227–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F., Nurcahyo, A., Iqbal, M., & Rusmanto, M. (2004). Abundance and distribution of sympatric gibbons in a threatened Sumatran rain forest. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F., Nurcahyo, A., Prasetyaningrum, M., & Iqbal, M. (2003). Fire, demography and the persistence of siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus: Hylobatidae) in a Sumatran rainforest. Animal Conservation, 6, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palombit, R. A. (1992). Pair bonds and monogamy in wild Siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar) in Northern Sumatra. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  36. Palombit, R. A. (1993). Lethal territorial aggression in a white-handed gibbon. American Journal of Primatology, 31, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palombit, R. A. (1994a). Extra-pair copulations in a monogamous ape. Animal Behavior, 47, 721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palombit, R. A. (1994b). Dynamic pair bonds in hylobatids: Implications regarding monogamous social systems. Behaviour, 128, 65–101.Google Scholar
  39. Raemaekers, P. M., & Raemaekers J. J. (1985). Long range vocal interactions between groups of gibbons Hylobates lar. Behaviour, 95, 26–44.Google Scholar
  40. Reichard, U., & Sommer, V. (1997). Group encounters in wild gibbons (Hylobates lar): Agonism, affiliation, and the concept of infanticide. Behaviour, 134, 1135–1174.Google Scholar
  41. Schaffner, C. M., & French, J. A. (2004). Behavioral and endocrine responses in male marmosets to the establishment of multimale breeding groups: evidence for non-monopolizing facultative polyandry. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 709–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siddiqi, N. A. (1986). Gibbbons (Hylobates hoolock) in the West Bhanugach Reserved Forest of Sylhet District, Bangladesh. Tigerpaper 8: 29–31.Google Scholar
  43. Sommer, V., & Reichard, U. (2000). Rethinking monogamy: The gibbon case. In P. M. Kappeler (Ed.), Primate males: Causes and consequences of variation in group composition (pp. 159–168). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tardif, S., Harrison, M., & Simek, M. (1993). Communal infant care in marmosets and tamarins: relation to energetics, ecology, and social organization. In A. B. Rylands (Ed.), Marmoset and tamarins. Systematics, behaviour and ecology (pp. 220–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tenaza, R. R. (1975). Territory and monogamy among Kloss’ gibbons (Hylobates klossii) in Siberut island, Indonesia. Folia Primatologica, 24, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilson, R. L. (1981). Family formation strategies of Kloss’s gibbons. Folia Primatologica, 35, 259–287.Google Scholar
  47. West, K. (1981). The behavior and ecology of the Siamang in Sumatra. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  48. Whittingham, L. A., Dunn, P. O., & Magrath, R. D. (1997). Relatedness, polyandry and extra-group paternity in the cooperatively-breeding white-browed scrubwren. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 40, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhenhe, L., Zhang, Y., Jiang, H., & Southwick, C. (1989). Population structure of Hylobates concolor in Bawanglin nature reserve, Hainan, China. American Journal of Primatology, 119, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations