Think Fast!: Vervet Monkeys Assess the Risk of Being Displaced by a Dominant Competitor When Making Foraging Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".