Experimental evidence for delayed post-conflict management behaviour in wild dwarf mongooses
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
- School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Australia
Figures
Figure 1
Spectrograms of the final sections of example (a) conflict and (b) control playback tracks.
A conflict track concluded with three growls from a dominant aggressor followed by a squeal from a subordinate target, whilst a control track concluded with three close calls from the same dominant individual followed by one close call from the same subordinate individual as in the matched conflict track. Spectrograms were created in Raven Pro 1.5 using a 1024 point fast Fourier Transform (Hamming window, 75% overlap, 2.70 ms time resolution, 43 Hz frequency resolution).
Figure 2
Immediate effect of within-group conflict on dwarf mongoose vigilance behaviour.
Compared to control situations, (a) natural foraging displacements (observational; N = 16 individuals in six groups) and (b) simulated foraging displacements (experimental; N = 17 individuals in eight groups) both resulted in a greater proportion of time spent vigilant by foragers in the subsequent 2–3 min. Shown in both panels are boxplots with the median and quartiles; whiskers represent data within quartiles ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. Values for each individual are given as circles, with lines connecting data from the same individual; in some instances, more than one individual has the same value, hence the number of lines can appear less than the stated sample size.
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Proportion of time spent vigilant by focal individuals following a natural (N=16) or simulated (N=17) within-group conflict or matched-control situation.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 3
Illustration of the protocol for Experiment 2.
Within-group conflicts between a dominant aggressor and a subordinate target were simulated during conflict-treatment afternoons using playbacks of foraging-displacement calls, with only close calls of the same individuals played back in control sessions. All grooming at the evening sleeping refuge was subsequently recorded following both treatments.
Figure 4
Delayed effect of experimentally increased within-group conflict on dwarf mongoose grooming behaviour.
Compared to control afternoons, those with simulated additional foraging displacements resulted in (a) a smaller proportion of adult group members engaged in evening grooming behaviour (N = 8 groups) but (b) a greater proportion of time engaged in grooming by those individuals that did any grooming (N = 63 individuals in eight groups). Shown in both panels are boxplots with the median and quartiles; whiskers represent data within quartiles ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. Values for each group or individual are given as circles, with lines connecting data from the same group or individual; orphan points, where an individual only groomed in one treatment, are also plotted. In some instances, more than one group or individual has the same value, hence the number of lines can appear less than the stated sample size.
-
Figure 4—source data 1
Proportion of adult group members engaged in evening grooming behaviour (N=8 groups) and proportion of time engaged in grooming by those individuals that did any grooming (N=63 individuals in eight groups) following afternoons with simulated within-group conflict or matched-control afternoons.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 5
Delayed effect of experimentally increased within-group conflict on the grooming between subordinate bystanders and the simulated aggressor.
Compared to control afternoons, those with simulated additional foraging displacements between a dominant aggressor and a subordinate target resulted in (a) a smaller proportion of time engaged in evening grooming by subordinate bystanders with the dominant aggressor but (b) no such treatment difference in the proportion of time that subordinate bystanders groomed with a non-playback dominant. At least in part, this was because (c) a smaller proportion of subordinate bystanders groomed with the dominant aggressor in the evening of conflict afternoons compared with control ones, but (d) there was no such treatment difference in the proportion of subordinates involved in grooming with a non-playback dominant. Shown in all panels are boxplots with the median and quartiles; whiskers represent data within quartiles ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. Values for each group are plotted separately (N = 8), with lines connecting data from the same group; in some instances, more than one group has the same value, hence the number of lines can appear less than eight.
-
Figure 5—source data 1
Proportion of time engaged in evening grooming by subordinate bystanders and proportion of those individuals involved in grooming with the dominant aggressor and with the non-playback dominant following afternoons with simulated within-group conflict or matched control afternoons (N=8 groups).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-fig5-data1-v1.xlsx
Figure 6
Delayed effect of experimentally increased within-group conflict on the grooming between subordinate bystanders.
Compared to control afternoons, those with simulated additional foraging displacements between a dominant aggressor and a subordinate target resulted in (a) a greater mean duration of grooming bouts (s) between subordinate group members. There was (b) an indication that subordinate bystanders and simulated targets groomed for a greater proportion of time on conflict evenings compared to control ones, although the result was not statistically significant; (c) there was no equivalent treatment difference in the proportion of time that subordinates groomed with non-target subordinates. Shown in all panels are boxplots with the median and quartiles; whiskers represent data within quartiles ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. Values for each group are plotted separately (N = 8), with lines connecting data from the same group; in some instances, more than one group has the same value, hence the number of dashed lines can appear less than eight.
-
Figure 6—source data 1
Mean duration of grooming bouts between subordinate group members, and proportion of time grooming with the target and a non-target individual following afternoons with simulated within-group conflict or matched control afternoons (N=8 groups).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-fig6-data1-v1.xlsx
Tables
Table 1
Output from mixed models investigating the grooming behaviour of adult dwarf mongooses at the evening refuge.
All models contained treatment (conflict, control) as a fixed effect (the reference level in the table is ‘conflict’), with Individual ID nested within Group ID as random effects. The first model (generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial error distribution and logit-link function) examined (a) whether an individual was involved in a grooming bout (Yes or No). Subsequent models focussed on those individuals that did participate in grooming, examining (b) the proportion of time spent grooming (GLMM with a beta error distribution and logit-link function), (c) the rate of grooming interactions (GLMM with a Poisson error distribution, log-link function, and log(duration) as an offset term to account for differences in the time available for grooming), and (d) the log-transformed mean grooming-bout duration (linear mixed model (LMM) with a Gaussian error distribution). Significant fixed effects shown in bold; variance ± SD reported for random effects is shown in italics.
| Effects | Estimate ± SE | df | χ2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Individual involvement in grooming | |||||
| Random effects | Group ID | 0.919 ± 0.959 | |||
| Individual ID in Group | <0.001 ± <0.001 | ||||
| Minimal model | (Intercept) | 1.267 ± 0.497 | |||
| Treatment (Conflict) | 1.106 ± 0.488 | 1 | 5.401 | 0.020 | |
| (b) Proportion of time spent grooming | |||||
| Random effects | Group ID | 0.187 ± 0.433 | |||
| Individual ID in Group | 0.065 ± 0.255 | ||||
| Minimal model | (Intercept) | –1.544 ± 0.190 | |||
| Treatment (Conflict) | –0.697 ± 0.164 | 1 | 15.873 | <0.001 | |
| (c) Rate of grooming bouts | |||||
| Random effects | Group ID | <0.001 ± 0.018 | |||
| Individual ID in Group | 0.195 ± 0.442 | ||||
| Minimal model | (Intercept) | –1.317 ± 0.102 | |||
| Treatment (Conflict) | –0.296 ± 0.105 | 1 | 8.010 | 0.005 | |
| (d) Mean grooming-bout duration | |||||
| Random effects | Group ID | 0.047 ± 0.217 | |||
| Individual ID in Group | 0.067 ± 0.258 | ||||
| Minimal model | (Intercept) | 3.257 ± 0.104 | |||
| Treatment (Conflict) | –0.167 ± 0.083 | 1 | 3.958 | 0.047 | |
Additional files
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-transrepform1-v1.docx
-
Source data 1
Source data for all statistical analyses (data for each separate analysis is provided in separate labelled worksheets).
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/69196/elife-69196-supp1-v1.xlsx
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Experimental evidence for delayed post-conflict management behaviour in wild dwarf mongooses
eLife 10:e69196.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69196
