Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This 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.

The Influence of Group Size and Neighbors on Vigilance in Two Species of Arboreal Monkeys

Adrian Treves
Behaviour
Vol. 135, No. 4, Predation and Primate Social Systems (Jun., 1998), pp. 453-481
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4535539
Page Count: 29
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($34.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
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.
The Influence of Group Size and Neighbors on Vigilance in Two Species of Arboreal Monkeys
Preview not available

Abstract

In theory, one of the main benefits of group-living is the sharing of vigilance among group-mates. However, data on scanning in redtail and red colobus monkeys indicate that only one class of individuals in each species derives clear benefits from shared vigilance. Moreover, the expected negative relationship between individual scanning and social group size was not met in these monkeys. Nor was time spent scanning influenced by the sex or species composition of groups. Shared vigilance was observed only among red colobus adult males and redtail adult females and only when they had neighbors within 2 m. Red colobus adult males saved 10% of their scanning time when they had one neighbor within 2 m, while redtail adult females saved 16% of their time under the same conditions. No other age-sex class demonstrated a significant decrease. The role of near neighbors has been underemphasized in previous work on grouping and vigilance, an oversight made more serious because of the often confounded relationship between spatial cohesion and group size. In redtails, but not in red colobus, the number of neighbors within 2 m was significantly positively correlated with group size. This prompts the hypothesis that the inconsistency and poor explanatory power of group size in studies of vigilance may be due to the underlying and undetected role of near neighbors. The paramount role of overall group size in optimality models is therefore questioned.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[453]
    [453]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
454
    454
  • Thumbnail: Page 
455
    455
  • Thumbnail: Page 
456
    456
  • Thumbnail: Page 
457
    457
  • Thumbnail: Page 
458
    458
  • Thumbnail: Page 
459
    459
  • Thumbnail: Page 
460
    460
  • Thumbnail: Page 
461
    461
  • Thumbnail: Page 
462
    462
  • Thumbnail: Page 
463
    463
  • Thumbnail: Page 
464
    464
  • Thumbnail: Page 
465
    465
  • Thumbnail: Page 
466
    466
  • Thumbnail: Page 
467
    467
  • Thumbnail: Page 
468
    468
  • Thumbnail: Page 
469
    469
  • Thumbnail: Page 
470
    470
  • Thumbnail: Page 
471
    471
  • Thumbnail: Page 
472
    472
  • Thumbnail: Page 
473
    473
  • Thumbnail: Page 
474
    474
  • Thumbnail: Page 
475
    475
  • Thumbnail: Page 
476
    476
  • Thumbnail: Page 
477
    477
  • Thumbnail: Page 
478
    478
  • Thumbnail: Page 
479
    479
  • Thumbnail: Page 
480
    480
  • Thumbnail: Page 
481
    481