Red colobus monkeys display alternative behavioral responses to the costs of scramble competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food competition is an expected cost of group living. It is therefore puzzling that there is little evidence for competition among group-living folivorous monkeys, for example, daily travel distance does not seem to increase with group size. It is even more puzzling that folivores do not form larger groups despite this apparent lack of food competition. This has become known as the folivore paradox, and to date, there is no broadly accepted theoretical solution. However, there have been no multigroup studies that have controlled for the potentially confounding effects of variation in habitat quality. We studied 9 groups of red colobus monkeys (Procolobus rufomitratus) in Kibale National Park, Uganda, and controlled for spatial and temporal variation in food availability. We found that larger groups occupied larger home ranges than smaller groups and that group size was related to increased foraging effort (longer daily travel distance), increased group spread, and reduced female reproductive success. Our results also suggest that monkeys in larger groups spent more time feeding and less time engaged in social behavior. These results suggest that folivorous red colobus monkeys experience within-group scramble competition and possess a suite of behavioral responses that may mitigate the cost of competition and represent adaptations for group living. The results offer insight into the folivore paradox and the evolutionary ecology of group size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".