Aggression rates increase around seasonally exploited resources in a primarily grass-eating primate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Female social relationships are often shaped by the distribution of dietary resources. Socioecological models predict that females should form strict linear dominance hierarchies when resources are clumped and exhibit more egalitarian social structures when resources are evenly distributed. While many frugivores and omnivores indeed exhibit dominance hierarchies accompanied by differential resource access, many folivores deviate from the expected pattern and display dominance hierarchies despite evenly distributed resources. Among these outliers, geladas (Theropithecus gelada) present a conspicuous puzzle; females exhibit aggressive competition and strict dominance hierarchies despite feeding primarily on non-monopolizable grasses. However, these grasses become scarce in the dry season and geladas supplement their diet with underground storage organs that require relatively extensive energy to extract. We tested whether female dominance hierarchies provide differential access to underground storage organs by assessing how rank, season, and feeding context affect aggression in geladas under long-term study in the Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. We found that the likelihood of receiving aggression was highest when feeding belowground and that the inverse relationship between rank and aggression was the most extreme while feeding belowground in the dry season. These results suggest that aggression in geladas revolves around belowground foods, which may mean that underground storage organs are an energetically central dietary component (despite being consumed less frequently than grasses), or that even “fallback” foods can influence feeding competition and social relationships. Further work should assess whether aggression in this context is directly associated with high-ranking usurpation of belowground foods from lower-ranking females following extraction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".