You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Exploring Foraging Decisions in a Social Primate Using Discrete-Choice Models
Harry H. Marshall, Alecia J. Carter, Tim Coulson, J. Marcus Rowcliffe and Guy Cowlishaw
The American Naturalist
Vol. 180, No. 4 (October 2012), pp. 481-495
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667587
Page Count: 15
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Foraging, Modeling, Baboons, Social capital, Woodlands, Animal feeding behavior, Social interaction, Kinship, Habitats, Habitat preferences
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
AbstractThere is a growing appreciation of the multiple social and nonsocial factors influencing the foraging behavior of social animals but little understanding of how these factors depend on habitat characteristics or individual traits. This partly reflects the difficulties inherent in using conventional statistical techniques to analyze multifactor, multicontext foraging decisions. Discrete-choice models provide a way to do so, and we demonstrate this by using them to investigate patch preference in a wild population of social foragers (chacma baboons Papio ursinus). Data were collected from 29 adults across two social groups, encompassing 683 foraging decisions over a 6-month period and the results interpreted using an information-theoretic approach. Baboon foraging decisions were influenced by multiple nonsocial and social factors and were often contingent on the characteristics of the habitat or individual. Differences in decision making between habitats were consistent with changes in interference-competition costs but not with changes in social-foraging benefits. Individual differences in decision making were suggestive of a trade-off between dominance rank and social capital. Our findings emphasize that taking a multifactor, multicontext approach is important to fully understand animal decision making. We also demonstrate how discrete-choice models can be used to achieve this.
© 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.