Abstract
Animals that occupy stable home ranges tend to unevenly exploit different areas in their efforts to find fitness-limiting resources, while also reducing the risks of intergroup conflict. Most analyses of these extrinsic forces identify their effects on movement paths and home range geometry, but not on the interaction of these responses or how movements might be centrally constrained as a result of competition with neighbors. The range utilization slope is a measure of central tendency and consists of space use plotted against distance from the center of the range. Slopes tend to be linear, concave-up, or concave-down and are predicted to change as a function of feeding competition from neighbors. To test this prediction and determine the spatio-temporal scales over which the central tendency might vary, we calculated utilization slopes and an index of range overlap for grey-cheeked mangabeys (Lophocebus albigena), blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis), and red-tailed monkeys (C. ascanius) in Uganda, which consume similar diets but experience varying intensities of intergroup conflict. As predicted, we find variation in utilization slopes across and within species, which corresponds with the extent of range overlap among conspecific groups.
Significance statement
How animals use different parts of the home range provides clues to the constraints they experience, such as food availability, predation risk, and competition from neighbors. Despite its importance in behavioral ecology, the role that intergroup competition plays on home range geometry is not well understood. We propose that the range utilization slope, which evaluates spatial use as a function of distance from the center of the range, is a useful measure of central tendency and indicates how animals are compressed into the center of the range by neighbors. In an analysis of monkey groups of three species, we find that utilization slopes vary across space and time, but generally correspond with the intensity of resource limitation. These slopes provide a rapid assessment of resource access at multiple spatial scales.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The raw movement datasets used for the current study are available via MoveBank (www.movebank.org): study name “NMP Ngogo Monkeys (redtail, mangabey; 2008-2009)” and study ID 1141207728; study name “NMP Ngogo Monkeys (redtail, 2012-2015)” and study ID 1142094968; study name “NMP Ngogo Monkeys (blue, mangabey; 2015-2018)” and study ID 1142311460. The aggregated movement datasets analyzed during this study are publicly available from Data Dryad: https://doi.org/10.25349/D9J61Z.
References
Abrahms B, Seidel DP, Dougherty E et al (2017) Suite of simple metrics reveals common movement syndromes across vertebrate taxa. Mov Ecol 5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0104-2
Anderson JR (2000) Sleep-related behavioural adaptations in free-ranging anthropoid primates. Sleep Med Rev 4:355–373. https://doi.org/10.1053/smrv.2000.0105
Bode NWF, Wood AJ, Franks DW (2011) The impact of social networks on animal collective motion. Anim Behav 82:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.011
Brown M (2013) Food and range defense in group-living primates. Anim Behav 85:807–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.027
Brown M, Crofoot MC (2013) Social and spatial relationships between primate groups. In: Sterling E, Bynum E, Blair M (eds) Primate ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–176 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10764-014-9762-8
Brown M, Waser PM (2018) Group movements in response to competitors’ calls indicate conflicts of interest between male and female grey-cheeked mangabeys. Am J Primatol 80:e22918. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22918
Bryer MAH (2020) Nutritional strategy and social environment in redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius). Dissertation, City University of New York, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3554
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York
Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to animals. J Mammal 24:346–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/1374834
Chapman CA, Wrangham RW, Chapman LJ et al (1999) Fruit and flower phenology at two sites in Kibale National Park, Uganda. J Trop Ecol 15:189–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467499000759
Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931034
Conklin-Brittain NL, Wrangham RW, Hunt KD (1998) Dietary response of chimpanzees and cercopithecines to seasonal variation in fruit abundance. II. Macronutrients. Int J Primatol 19:971–998. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020370119096
Cords M (1990) Mixed-species association of East African guenons: general patterns or specific examples? Am J Primatol 21:101–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.1350210204
Don B, Rennolls K (1983) A home range model incorporating biological attraction points. J Anim Ecol:69–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/4588
Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01326.x
Frogge H, Jones RA, Angedakin S et al (2022) Constraints on population growth of blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis) in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behaviour 159:961–987. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-bja10160
Giuggioli L, Potts JR, Harris S (2011) Animal interactions and the emergence of territoriality. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002008
Harris TR (2006) Between-group contest competition for food in a highly folivorous population of black and white colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:317–329 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25511584
Jetz W, Carbone C, Fulford J et al (2004) The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102138
Laundré JW, Hernández L, Altendorf KB (2001) Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can J Zool 79:1401–1409. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-094
Markham AC, Alberts SC, Altmann J (2012) Intergroup conflict: ecological predictors of winning and consequences of defeat in a wild primate population. Anim Behav 84:399–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.009
Minta SC (1992) Tests of spatial and temporal interaction among animals. Ecol Appl 2:178–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941774
Morales JM, Ellner SP (2002) Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83:2240–2247. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2240:SUAMIH]2.0.CO;2
Nathan R (2008) An emerging movement ecology paradigm. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19050–19051. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808918105
Noonan MJ, Martinez-Garcia R, Davis GH et al (2021) Estimating encounter location distributions from animal tracking data. Methods Ecol Evol 12:1158–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13597
Noser R, Byrne RW (2010) How do wild baboons (Papio ursinus) plan their routes? Travel among multiple high-quality food sources with inter-group competition. Anim Cogn 13:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0254-8
Palminteri S, Powell GVN, Peres CA (2016) Determinants of spatial behavior of a tropical forest seed predator: the roles of optimal foraging, dietary diversification, and home range defense. Am J Primatol 78:523–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22407
Pearce F, Carbone C, Cowlishaw G et al (2013) Space-use scaling and home range overlap in primates. Proc Roy Soc B 280:20122122. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2122
Potts KB, Chapman CA, Lwanga JS (2009) Floristic heterogeneity between forested sites in Kibale National Park, Uganda: insights into the fine-scale determinants of density in a large-bodied frugivorous primate. J Anim Ecol 78:1269–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01578.x
Powell RA (2000) Animal home range and territories and home-range estimators. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 65–110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/boit11340
Robinson JG (1979) Vocal regulation of use of space by groups of titi monkeys Callicebus moloch. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:1–15 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4599213
Roth AM, Cords M (2016) Effects of group size and contest location on the outcome and intensity of intergroup contests in wild blue monkeys. Anim Behav 113:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.11.011
Samuel MD, Pierce DJ, Garton EO (1985) Identifying areas of concentrated use within the home range. J Anim Ecol 54:711–719. https://doi.org/10.2307/4373
Schick RS, Loarie SR, Colchero F et al (2008) Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. Ecol Lett 11:1338–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01249.x
Seaman DE, Powell RA (1990) Identifying patterns and intensity of home range use. In: Darling LM, Archibald WR (eds) Bears: their biology and management, A Selection of Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, vol 8. International Association of Bear Research and Management, Victoria, BC, Canada, pp 243–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/3872925
Steenbeek R (1999) Tenure related changes in wild Thomas’s langurs. I: between-group interactions. Behaviour 136:595–625. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999501487
Stolwijk A, Straatman H, Zielhuis G (1999) Studying seasonality by using sine and cosine functions in regression analysis. J Epidemiol Commun H 53:235–238. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.4.235
Struhsaker TT (1997) Ecology of an African rain forest. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467498240399
Struhsaker TT, Leland L (1979) Socioecology of five sympatric monkey species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Adv Stud Behav 9:159–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60036-4
Tórrez-Herrera LL, Davis GH, Crofoot MC (2020) Do monkeys avoid areas of home range overlap because they are dangerous? A test of the Risk Hypothesis in white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus). Int J Primatol 41:246–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-019-00110-0
Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
Van Belle S, Porter A, Fernandez-Duque E et al (2018) Ranging behavior and potential for territoriality in equatorial sakis (Pithecia aequatorialis) in Amazonian Ecuador. Am J Phys Anthropol 167:701–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23645
van de Pol M, Wright J (2009) A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim Behav 77:753–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.006
Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Benhamou S et al (2009) Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos 118:641–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17003.x
Vander Wal E, Rodgers A (2012) An individual-based quantitative approach for delineating core areas of animal space use. Ecol Modell 224:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.10.006
Waser PM, Wiley RH (1979) Mechanisms and evolution of spacing in animals. In: Marler P, Vandenberg JG (eds) Handbook of behavioral biology, social behavior and communication, vol 3. Plenum, New York, pp 159–223
Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW (2007) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) modify grouping and vocal behaviour in response to location-specific risk. Behaviour 144:1621–1653. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853907782512137
Wilson ML, Kahlenberg SM, Wells M et al (2012) Ecological and social factors affect the occurrence and outcomes of intergroup encounters in chimpanzees. Anim Behav 83:277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.004
Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938423
Wrangham RW, Crofoot MC, Lundy R et al (2007) Use of overlap zones among group-living primates: a test of the risk hypothesis. Behaviour 144:1599–1619. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853907782512092
Acknowledgements
We thank the staff of the Ngogo Monkey Project (Angwela Felix, Akora Charles, Asaba Godfrey, Barisigara Leonard, Busobuzi Richard, Muhangi Emmanuel, Happy Alfred, Kabagambe Prime, King Solomon, Kyalikunda Dennis, Lucky Daniel, Mutambuze Julius, Sunday Robert, and Twineomujuni Ambrozio) for assistance with data collection. This manuscript benefited from useful feedback from the reviewers and from members of the Department for the Ecology of Animal Societies in the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior.
Funding
Funding for this research was awarded to MB and provided by the Leakey Foundation; the US National Science Foundation (award # 0824512, # 0333415, # 0742450, and # 1103444); Columbia University; the International Primatological Society; the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; the Hellman Family Foundation; the University of California, Santa Barbara (grants from the Academic Senate and the Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research); and an anonymous donor. Logistical support was provided by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (in the framework of the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship endowed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and awarded to Margaret Crofoot).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MB oversaw collection of the data in the field, designed the study, conducted the statistical analyses, and co-wrote the manuscript. MRG collated and prepared the data for analysis and co-wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Permission to carry out this study was granted by the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, and the Uganda Office of the President. The protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) of Columbia University (AC-AAAA8112) and the University of New Mexico (11-100661-MCC) and deemed exempt at the University of California, Santa Barbara. All research activities were conducted in compliance with Ugandan national laws, in adherence with the ASAB/ABS Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, and all institutional guidelines. The non-invasive field observations were conducted exclusively within Kibale National Park, a public entity managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority. The IUCN conservation status of red-tailed monkeys, blue monkeys, and grey-cheeked mangabeys is “least concern,” and no monkeys were handled, captured, or otherwise manipulated during this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
Additional information
Communicated by D. P. Watts
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 478 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, M., Gaffney, M.R. Range utilization slopes as a measure of central tendency and intergroup overlap in primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 77, 77 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03351-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03351-5