Think Fast!: Vervet Monkeys Assess the Risk of Being Displaced by a Dominant Competitor When Making Foraging Decisions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Foraging animals need to quickly assess the costs and benefits of different foraging decisions, including resource quantity, quality, preference, ease of access, dispersion, distance, and predation risk. Social animals also need to take social context into account and adapt foraging strategies that maximize net resource intake and minimize contest competition with conspecifics. We used an experimental approach to investigate how social context impacts wild vervet monkey ( Chlorocebus pygerythrus ) foraging decisions in a multi-destination pentagon array. We baited four platforms with less-preferred corn and one platform with a larger, preferred resource (half banana) that required handling time. We ran over 1,000 trials and found that when monkeys foraged alone, they usually took the path that minimized travel distance but prioritized the preferred-food platform when in competition. However, the foraging strategy chosen by low-ranking individuals depended on the handling skill of the decision maker (i.e., time it would take them to retrieve the banana), the relative rank of their audience members (i.e., who has priority-of-access to resources), and the distance audience members were from the experiment site (i.e., their travel time). When the risk of being displaced by a dominant competitor was low (because they were far away and/or because the decision-maker was skilled in retrieving the banana), low-ranking individuals chose a route that minimized travel costs. Conversely, when the risk of losing food to a dominant competitor was high, decision-makers rushed for the preferred-food platform at the onset of the trial. When the risk of displacement was moderate because a dominant audience member was at least 50 m away, low-ranking individuals partly prioritized the preferred-food platform but took the time to stop for one platform of corn on the way. This strategy increased the total amount of food obtained during the trial. These findings suggest that lower-ranking individuals, who experienced high contest competition at the foraging experiment, calculated the risk of being displaced by a dominant competitor when making foraging decisions. This experiment demonstrates that vervets go through a complex decision-making process that simultaneously considers the profitability of different foraging decisions and their social context.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».