These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative social grooming networks in captive chimpanzees and bonobos.
    Author: Rodrigues MA, Boeving ER.
    Journal: Primates; 2019 May; 60(3):191-202. PubMed ID: 29931656.
    Abstract:
    Despite similar dispersal patterns, models of Pan sociality emphasize sex differences in social bonding between the two species. Such disparities are attributed to hypothesized differences in environmental selective pressures that structure association patterns. However, recent research documents greater within-species variation in social bonds in both species. Here, we examine grooming networks in captive chimpanzees at the North Carolina Zoo, and captive bonobos at the Columbus Zoo. We hypothesized that male-female grooming relationships would be the strongest in both species, but that males and females of both species would not significantly differ between centrality, strength, or clustering. Via Mantel tests, we found that neither bonobos (t = - 0.070, r = - 0.009, two-tailed p = 0.942) nor chimpanzees (t = - 0.495, r = - 0.0939, two-tailed p = 0.6205) had significant differences in grooming between or within sexes. Neither species had significant sex differences in centrality, strength, or clustering. To account for idiosyncratic factors affecting grooming distribution, we examined the effect of origin, kinship, and group tenure on social network position. We found that wild-born bonobos exhibited greater eigenvector centrality (t = - 2.592, df = 9, p = 0.29) and strength (t = - 2.401; df = 9, p = 0.040), and group tenure was significantly correlated with strength (r = 0.608; N = 11, p - 0 = 0.47). None of these factors varied with social network position in chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that in captive settings, idiosyncratic factors related to individual history play a greater role in structuring social networks. Such variation may point to the behavioral flexibility inherent in fission-fusion networks, and mirror between-site variation found in wild chimpanzees. However, some idiosyncratic factors shaping captive networks may be an artifact of captivity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]