Pair-specific usage of sleeping sites and their implications for social organization in a nocturnal Malagasy primate, the Milne Edwards' sportive lemur (Lepilemur edwardsi)

2003 ◽  
Vol 122 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solofonirina Rasoloharijaona ◽  
Berthe Rakotosamimanana ◽  
Blanchard Randrianambinina ◽  
Elke Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Sleeping Sites ◽  
Sportive Lemur

scholarly journals Social organization of a solitary carnivore: spatial behaviour, interactions and relatedness in the slender mongoose

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 182160
Author(s):  
Beke Graw ◽  
Bart Kranstauber ◽  
Marta B. Manser
Keyword(s):  
Complex System ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Spatial Organization ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Anecdotal Evidence ◽  
Spatial Behaviour ◽  
Carnivore Species ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Sleeping Sites

The majority of carnivore species are described as solitary, but little is known about their social organization and interactions with conspecifics. We investigated the spatial organization and social interactions as well as relatedness of slender mongooses ( Galerella sanguinea ) living in the southern Kalahari. This is a little studied small carnivore previously described as solitary with anecdotal evidence for male associations. In our study population, mongooses arranged in spatial groups consisting of one to three males and up to four females. Male ranges, based on sleeping sites, were large and overlapping, encompassing the smaller and more exclusive female ranges. Spatial groups could be distinguished by their behaviour, communal denning and home range. Within spatial groups animals communally denned in up to 33% of nights, mainly during winter months, presumably to gain thermoregulatory benefits. Associations of related males gained reproductive benefits likely through increased territorial and female defence. Our study supports slender mongooses to be better described as solitary foragers living in a complex system of spatial groups with amicable social interactions between specific individuals. We suggest that the recognition of underlying ‘hidden' complexities in these apparently ‘solitary' organizations needs to be accounted for when investigating group living and social behaviour.

scholarly journals Home Range Size and Social Organization of the Sahamalaza Sportive Lemur,Lepilemur sahamalazensis

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Seiler ◽  
Marc Holderied ◽  
Christoph Schwitzer
Keyword(s):  
Home Range ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Home Range Size ◽  
Range Size ◽  
Sportive Lemur

scholarly journals Anti-predator behaviour of Sahamalaza sportive lemurs, Lepilemur sahamalazensis, at diurnal sleeping sites

2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-S1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Seiler ◽  
Christoph Schwitzer ◽  
Marc Holderied
Keyword(s):  
Predation Risk ◽  
Group Formation ◽  
Predation Pressure ◽  
Alarm Calls ◽  
Contact Calls ◽  
Terrestrial Predator ◽  
High Predation ◽  
Sleeping Sites ◽  
Sportive Lemur ◽  
Predator Behaviour

In response to predation pressure by raptors, snakes, and carnivores, primates employ anti-predator behaviours such as avoiding areas of high predation risk, cryptic behaviour and camouflage, vigilance and group formation (including mixedspecies associations), and eavesdropping on other species’ alarm calls. After detecting a predator, primates can produce alarm calls, show predator-specific escape strategies or even mob the predator. It remains unclear how solitary nocturnal primates respond to diurnal predation pressure while they sleep or rest. The aim of this study was to investigate the diurnal anti-predator behaviour of the nocturnal and solitary Sahamalaza sportive lemur, Lepilemur sahamalazensis, which regularly rests in exposed locations. We observed the responses of 32 Sahamalaza sportive lemurs to playbacks of territorial calls of an aerial predator (Madagascar harrier hawk), mating calls of a terrestrial predator (fossa), and the contact calls of a medium-sized bird (crested coua) as a control, at different diurnal sleeping sites. Lemurs never showed a flight response after replays of predator or control calls, but regularly froze after harrier hawk calls. Lemurs scanned the sky immediately after playback of harrier hawk calls, and the ground or trees after fossa calls. Lemur vigilance increased significantly after both predator calls. After crested coua calls the animals became significantly less vigilant, suggesting that contact calls of this bird serve as indicators of predator absence. We found no response differences between different types of sleeping sites. Our results show that resting Sahamalaza sportive lemurs recognise predator vocalisations as indicators of increased predation risk, discern vocalizations of different predators, and employ anti-predator behaviours specific for different predator classes. Their behavioural responses while resting or sleeping are comparable to those of active primates, and their response rate of 80% shows that this solitary and nocturnal primate is constantly aware of its environment.

Seeking Structure in Social Organization: Personal Control and Hierarchies

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin P. Friesen ◽  
Aaron C. Kay ◽  
Richard P. Eibach ◽  
Adam D. Galinsky
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Personal Control

Social organization in the Orcadian Neolithic: identification of elite domestic structures and settlements through analysis of excavation data

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
David MacInnes
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Social Hierarchy ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Late Neolithic ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Methods Of Analysis ◽  
The Subject

The nature of social organization during the Orcadian Neolithic has been the subject of discussion for several decades with much of the debate focused on answering an insightful question posed by Colin Renfrew in 1979. He asked, how was society organised to construct the larger, innovative monuments of the Orcadian Late Neolithic that were centralised in the western Mainland? There are many possible answers to the question but little evidence pointing to a probable solution, so the discussion has continued for many years. This paper takes a new approach by asking a different question: what can be learned about Orcadian Neolithic social organization from the quantitative and qualitative evidence accumulating from excavated domestic structures and settlements?In an attempt to answer this question, quantitative and qualitative data about domestic structures and about settlements was collected from published reports on 15 Orcadian Neolithic excavated sites. The published data is less extensive than hoped but is sufficient to support a provisional answer: a social hierarchy probably did not develop in the Early Neolithic but almost certainly did in the Late Neolithic, for which the data is more comprehensive.While this is only one approach of several possible ways to consider the question, it is by exploring different methods of analysis and comparing them that an understanding of the Orcadian Neolithic can move forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document