Percentage of friendly interactions during the second post-conflict interaction by the recipient of affiliation, following bystander affiliation with the victim (left) or with the aggressor (right).

<p>This is dependant on the RBI of the bystander with either the recipient of affiliation (left) or the recipient's opponent (right).</p

Bystander affiliation with the victim: Mean relationship benefit index (RBI) of bystanders (N = 12) with the aggressor and with the victim and the percentage of friendly interactions following bystander affiliation.

<p>*one sample excluded, since victims did not interact with anybody for the rest of the observation time following bystander affiliation.</p

Relationship benefit index (RBI) of all subject – subject dyads in the North group of Taï chimpanzees.

<p>The RBI is a composite index from two variables: food sharing and agonistic support (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013995#s4" target="_blank">methods</a>). RBI: (1) low benefit partner  =  non friends, (2) medium benefit partner  =  weak friends, (3) high benefit partner  =  good friends.</p

Predicted relationships between the bystander (B) and both of the opponents (A: aggressor, V: victim) for each of the three hypotheses are shown separately for bystander affiliation with the victim (top) and with the aggressor (bottom).

<p>Solid lines show the observed interactions (conflict: double line; bystander affiliation: single line), discontinuous lines show the predicted relationship (dashed: good relationship; dotted: bad relationship), while no line indicates no predicted relationship.</p

Latency of friendly second post-conflict interaction among the opponents following bystander affiliation.

<p>The data are divided in categories depending on the bystander's RBI with the recipient's opponent (RBI: 1 = no, 2 = weak, 3 = good friendship). The latency is presented in relation to the average inter-interaction time between individuals' friendly interactions (relative latency >1 indicates that post-affiliation interaction has a longer than average latency). Error lines represent the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the distribution calculated with bootstrap sampling. In case the CI excludes the value 1, opponents are significantly (p = 0.05) less tolerant with each other than under normal conditions.</p

The relationship between the target behaviours combined with the role of subject (aggression: aggressor, aggression: victim, and resting: control) and corresponding relative uGC levels, presented as residuals.

<p>The relative uGC level is the percentage of the uGC level during the peak-period in comparison to the pre-period.</p

The relationship between subject’s rank and corresponding relative uGC levels, presented as residuals.

<p>The relative uGC level is the percentage of the uGC level during the peak-period in comparison to the pre-period. Highest dominance rank = 1.</p

Visual concept of how we classified the different urine samples to the different time periods.

<p>The time line is marked in relation to the start of the target behaviour. Point t₁ refers to 135 min after the onset of the target behavior; point t₂ refers to 270 min after the end of the target behaviour. The overlap zones correspond to 30 min after t₁ and t₂ respectively.</p

The relationship between the target behaviours (aggression and resting events) and corresponding relative uGC levels, presented as residuals.

<p>The relative uGC level is the percentage of the uGC level during the peak-period in comparison to the pre-period.</p

Distance-decay effect in stone tool transport by wild chimpanzees - Statistical model outcomes:

Investigations of the weight of granite hammerstones and its influenced by the distance to the closest inselberg (as the possible origin): The table presents the results of a linear model analyzing the effect of distance to the nearest inselberg on hammerstone weight of Panda nut cracking tools