Cookies Policy
Cookie Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Use of overlap zones among group-living primates: a test of the risk hypothesis

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

$30.00+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

Overlap zones between home ranges of neighboring groups of primates are routinely reported to be under-used. However, little is known about how the size of overlap zones varies, or what factors influence their size. Here we use ranging data on three species of group-living primates to test the hypothesis that overlap zones are smaller or used less in species that are subject to a higher risk of lethal aggression in intergroup encounters. Redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) have a low risk of violence; white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) have an intermediate risk; chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) face a high risk of violent encounters with their neighbors. We calculated two indices of use of the overlap zone. First, we assessed the opportunity for groups to meet each other as the range overlap, i.e., the diameter of the home range in relation to the distance between neighboring ranges. Second, we compared the intensity with which groups used the overlap zone by calculating utilization curves that described how space-use patterns change with distance from a group's center of activity. Neither the overlap potentials nor utilization curves supported the risk hypothesis. There was little evidence of differences among the three species, all of which showed substantial under-use of overlap zones. Our data, which provide the first systematic comparison of overlap zones among primates, thus conform to previous reports suggesting that primate groups tend to have large overlap zones, regardless of the risk of violence. Since such zones are potentially responsible for carrying capacity being lower than expected by an ideal-free distribution, it is an important problem to understand why they are apparently widespread.


Article metrics loading...


Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA


Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to email alerts
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Behaviour — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation