Limits...
The Equivocal Relationship Between Territoriality and Scent Marking in Wild Saddleback Tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis).

Lledo-Ferrer Y, Peláez F, Heymann EW - Int. J. Primatol. (2011)

Bottom Line: None of the predictions were confirmed.It appears that instead of defending a territory in the classic sense, the tamarins are optimizing signal transmission by depositing their scents where the probability of detection by neighbors is higher.ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10764-011-9516-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Researchers have often assumed that scent marking serves a territorial function in callitrichines, although some controversy exists. To fulfill such a function, scent marks should 1) prevent intrusions, 2) ensure access to feeding resources, 3) enable avoidance of intergroup encounters, or 4) play an important role in the aggressive encounters between groups. We studied 13 saddleback tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) belonging to 3 free-ranging groups, which formed mixed-species troops with moustached tamarins (S. mystax) in the Amazonian rain forest of Peru. None of the predictions were confirmed. The tamarins used a border-marking strategy, marking more on the periphery of their territory. However, feeding trees in overlap and encounter areas received more scent marking but were still visited by neighboring groups. Intergroup encounters occurred more often than expected, and scent-marking frequency was not higher during them than when no other group was present. It appears that instead of defending a territory in the classic sense, the tamarins are optimizing signal transmission by depositing their scents where the probability of detection by neighbors is higher. Saddleback tamarins may use shared areas of their home ranges to exchange information with neighboring groups, perhaps regarding reproductive opportunities. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10764-011-9516-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Proportion of a group’s own scents inspected during intergroup encounters, 24 h later (Day), and when the group uses the same area of the encounter (Area), but no other group is present.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3139874&req=5

Fig5: Proportion of a group’s own scents inspected during intergroup encounters, 24 h later (Day), and when the group uses the same area of the encounter (Area), but no other group is present.

Mentions: Phase had a significant effect on the frequency of olfactory inspections (GLMM: F(2,28) = 6.96, p = 0.004). This frequency was significantly lower during intergroup encounters vs. the next day (Bonferroni p = 0.005; Fig. 5), but did not differ compared with the use of the same area (Bonferroni p = 1).Fig. 5


The Equivocal Relationship Between Territoriality and Scent Marking in Wild Saddleback Tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis).

Lledo-Ferrer Y, Peláez F, Heymann EW - Int. J. Primatol. (2011)

Proportion of a group’s own scents inspected during intergroup encounters, 24 h later (Day), and when the group uses the same area of the encounter (Area), but no other group is present.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3139874&req=5

Fig5: Proportion of a group’s own scents inspected during intergroup encounters, 24 h later (Day), and when the group uses the same area of the encounter (Area), but no other group is present.
Mentions: Phase had a significant effect on the frequency of olfactory inspections (GLMM: F(2,28) = 6.96, p = 0.004). This frequency was significantly lower during intergroup encounters vs. the next day (Bonferroni p = 0.005; Fig. 5), but did not differ compared with the use of the same area (Bonferroni p = 1).Fig. 5

Bottom Line: None of the predictions were confirmed.It appears that instead of defending a territory in the classic sense, the tamarins are optimizing signal transmission by depositing their scents where the probability of detection by neighbors is higher.ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10764-011-9516-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Researchers have often assumed that scent marking serves a territorial function in callitrichines, although some controversy exists. To fulfill such a function, scent marks should 1) prevent intrusions, 2) ensure access to feeding resources, 3) enable avoidance of intergroup encounters, or 4) play an important role in the aggressive encounters between groups. We studied 13 saddleback tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) belonging to 3 free-ranging groups, which formed mixed-species troops with moustached tamarins (S. mystax) in the Amazonian rain forest of Peru. None of the predictions were confirmed. The tamarins used a border-marking strategy, marking more on the periphery of their territory. However, feeding trees in overlap and encounter areas received more scent marking but were still visited by neighboring groups. Intergroup encounters occurred more often than expected, and scent-marking frequency was not higher during them than when no other group was present. It appears that instead of defending a territory in the classic sense, the tamarins are optimizing signal transmission by depositing their scents where the probability of detection by neighbors is higher. Saddleback tamarins may use shared areas of their home ranges to exchange information with neighboring groups, perhaps regarding reproductive opportunities. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10764-011-9516-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus