Cookies Policy
X

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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Behaviour

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.

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

10.1163/156853907782512092
/content/journals/10.1163/156853907782512092
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853907782512092
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853907782512092
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853907782512092
2007-12-01
2016-12-06

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • 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
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation