Sex differences in the movement patterns of free-ranging chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii): foraging and border checking

Most social primates live in cohesive groups, so travel paths inevitably reflect compromise: decision processes of individuals are obscured. The fission-fusion social organisation of the chimpanzee, however, allows an individual’s movements to be investigated independently. We followed 15 chimpanzees (8 male and 7 female) through the relatively flat forest of Budongo, Uganda, plotting the path of each individual over periods of 1-3 days. Chimpanzee movement was parsed into phases ending with halts of more than 20 minutes, during which individuals fed, rested or engaged in social activities. Males, lactating or pregnant females, and sexually receptive females all travelled similar average distances between halts, at similar speeds, and along similarly direct beeline paths. Compared to lactating or pregnant females, males did travel for a significantly longer time each day and halted more often, but the most striking sex differences appeared in the organisation of movement phases into a day’s path. After a halt, males tended to continue in the same direction as before. Lactating or pregnant females showed no such strategy and often retraced the preceding phase, returning to previously visited food patches. We suggest that female chimpanzee movements approximate an optimal solution to feeding requirements, whereas the paths of males allow integration of foraging with territorial defence. The ‘continually moving forwards’ strategy of males enables them to monitor their territory boundaries – border checking – whilst foraging, generally avoiding the explicit boundary patrols observed at other chimpanzee study sites

Why male orangutans do not kill infants

Infanticide is widespread among mammals, is particularly common in primates, and has been shown to be an adaptive male strategy under certain conditions. Although no infanticides in wild orangutans have been reported to date, several authors have suggested that infanticide has been an important selection pressure influencing orangutan behavior and the evolution of orangutan social systems. In this paper, we critically assess this suggestion. We begin by investigating whether wild orangutans have been studied for a sufficiently long period that we might reasonably expect to have detected infanticide if it occurs. We consider whether orangutan females exhibit counterstrategies typically employed by other mammalian females. We also assess the hypothesis that orangutan females form special bonds with particular “protector males” to guard against infanticide. Lastly, we discuss socioecological reasons why orangutan males may not benefit from infanticide. We conclude that there is limited evidence for female counterstrategies and little support for the protector male hypothesis. Aspects of orangutan paternity certainty, lactational amenorrhea, and ranging behavior may explain why infanticide is not a strategy regularly employed by orangutan males on Sumatra or Borneo

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts

Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing. Two kinds of hypothesis have been proposed. Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates.1-5 Alternatively, it could be a non-adaptive result of human impacts, such as habitat change or food provisioning.6-9 To discriminate between these hypotheses we compiled information from 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities studied over five decades. Our data include 152 killings (N=58 observed, 41 inferred, and 53 suspected killings) by chimpanzees in 15 communities and one suspected killing by bonobos. We found that males were the most frequent attackers (92% of participants) and victims (73%); most killings (66%) involved intercommunity attacks; and attackers greatly outnumbered their victims (median 8:1 ratio). Variation in killing rates was unrelated to measures of human impacts. Our results are compatible with previously proposed adaptive explanations for killing by chimpanzees whereas the human impact hypothesis is not supported.Human Evolutionary Biolog