| Title |
The influence of kinship and dominance hierarchy on grooming partner choice in free-ranging Macaca mulatta brevicaudus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-018-0662-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheng-Feng Wu, Zhi-Jie Liao, Cedric Sueur, John Chih Mun Sha, Jie Zhang, Peng Zhang |
| Abstract |
In group-living animals, individuals do not interact uniformly with their conspecifics. Among primates, such heterogeneity in partner choice can be discerned from affiliative grooming patterns. While the preference for selecting close kin as grooming partners is ubiquitous across the primate order, the selection of higher-ranking non-kin individuals as grooming partners is less common. We studied a group of provisioned rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta brevicaudus) on Hainan Island, China, to examine rank-related benefits of grooming exchanges and the influence of kin relationships. We tested four hypotheses based on Seyfarth's model: (1) there will be kin preference in grooming relationships; (2) grooming between non-kin individuals will be directed up the dominance rank; (3) grooming between non-kin individuals will reduce aggression from higher-ranking ones; and (4) non-kin individuals will spend more time grooming with adjacent ranked ones. We found that grooming relationships between kin individuals were stronger than those between non-kin individuals. For non-kin relationships, lower-ranking individuals received less aggression from higher-ranking ones through grooming; a benefit they could not derive through grooming exchanges with individuals related by kinship. Individuals spent more time grooming adjacent higher-ranking non-kin individuals and higher-ranking individuals also received more grooming from non-kin individuals. Our results supported Seyfarth's model for predicting partner choice between non-kin individuals. For relationships between kin individuals, we found results that were not consistent with prediction for the exchanges of aggression and grooming, indicating the importance to control for the influence of kinship in future studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,593,228
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#752
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,600
of 327,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.