Gibbon strategies in a food competition task

Abstract Social primates face conflicts of interest with other partners when their individual and collective interests collide. Despite living in small, primarily bonded, groups compared to other social primates, gibbons are not exempt from these conflicts in their everyday lives. In the current tas...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro, Robert Ball, Federico Rossano
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/2873aa3ffe3d4e8bb5a9a97b1ffa75e5
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:2873aa3ffe3d4e8bb5a9a97b1ffa75e5
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:2873aa3ffe3d4e8bb5a9a97b1ffa75e52021-12-02T16:55:54ZGibbon strategies in a food competition task10.1038/s41598-021-88804-52045-2322https://doaj.org/article/2873aa3ffe3d4e8bb5a9a97b1ffa75e52021-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88804-5https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Social primates face conflicts of interest with other partners when their individual and collective interests collide. Despite living in small, primarily bonded, groups compared to other social primates, gibbons are not exempt from these conflicts in their everyday lives. In the current task, we asked whether dyads of gibbons would solve a conflict of interest over food rewards. We presented dyads of gibbons with a situation in which they could decide whether to take an active role and pull a handle to release food rewards at a distance or take a passive role and avoid action. In this situation, the passive partner could take an advantageous position to obtain the rewards over the active partner. Gibbons participated in three conditions: a control condition with no food rewards, a test condition with indirect food rewards and a test condition with direct food rewards. In both test conditions, five rewards were released at a distance from the handle. In addition, the active individual could obtain one extra food reward from the handle in the direct food condition. We found that gibbons acted more often in the two conditions involving food rewards, and waited longer in the indirect compared to the direct food condition, thus suggesting that they understood the task contingencies. Surprisingly, we found that in a majority of dyads, individuals in the active role obtained most of the payoff compared to individuals in the passive role in both food conditions. Furthermore, in some occasions individuals in the active role did not approach the location where the food was released. These results suggest that while gibbons may strategize to maximize benefits in a competitive food task, they often allowed their partners to obtain better rewards. Our results highlight the importance of social tolerance and motivation as drivers promoting cooperation in these species.Alejandro Sánchez-AmaroRobert BallFederico RossanoNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro Robert Ball Federico Rossano Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
description	Abstract Social primates face conflicts of interest with other partners when their individual and collective interests collide. Despite living in small, primarily bonded, groups compared to other social primates, gibbons are not exempt from these conflicts in their everyday lives. In the current task, we asked whether dyads of gibbons would solve a conflict of interest over food rewards. We presented dyads of gibbons with a situation in which they could decide whether to take an active role and pull a handle to release food rewards at a distance or take a passive role and avoid action. In this situation, the passive partner could take an advantageous position to obtain the rewards over the active partner. Gibbons participated in three conditions: a control condition with no food rewards, a test condition with indirect food rewards and a test condition with direct food rewards. In both test conditions, five rewards were released at a distance from the handle. In addition, the active individual could obtain one extra food reward from the handle in the direct food condition. We found that gibbons acted more often in the two conditions involving food rewards, and waited longer in the indirect compared to the direct food condition, thus suggesting that they understood the task contingencies. Surprisingly, we found that in a majority of dyads, individuals in the active role obtained most of the payoff compared to individuals in the passive role in both food conditions. Furthermore, in some occasions individuals in the active role did not approach the location where the food was released. These results suggest that while gibbons may strategize to maximize benefits in a competitive food task, they often allowed their partners to obtain better rewards. Our results highlight the importance of social tolerance and motivation as drivers promoting cooperation in these species.
format	article
author	Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro Robert Ball Federico Rossano
author_facet	Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro Robert Ball Federico Rossano
author_sort	Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro
title	Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
title_short	Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
title_full	Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
title_fullStr	Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
title_full_unstemmed	Gibbon strategies in a food competition task
title_sort	gibbon strategies in a food competition task
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/2873aa3ffe3d4e8bb5a9a97b1ffa75e5
work_keys_str_mv	AT alejandrosanchezamaro gibbonstrategiesinafoodcompetitiontask AT robertball gibbonstrategiesinafoodcompetitiontask AT federicorossano gibbonstrategiesinafoodcompetitiontask
_version_	1718382788835540992

Gibbon strategies in a food competition task

Ejemplares similares