bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Arlet, M. E.

Publications and source records attributed to Arlet, M. E..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Disparate social structures are underpinned by distinct social rules across a primate radiation

Over six decades of research on wild baboons and their close relatives (collectively, the African papionins) have uncovered substantial variation in their behavior and social systems. While most papionins form discrete social groups (single-level societies), a few others form small social units that are nested within larger supergroups (multi-level societies). These two systems are generally thought to be qualitatively distinct, but data from wild populations increasingly suggest that there may be areas of overlap. To quantify this potential gradient in social structure, a more systematic, comparative analysis is needed. Here, we constructed a database of behavioral and demographic records spanning 135 group-years, 28 social groups, 13 long-term field studies, and 11 species to quantify variation in grooming network structure, and identify the individual and dyadic properties (e.g., kinship and social status effects) that underlie this variation. Consistent with accumulating observations in the field, the single-level species could be divided into two categories: cohesive and cliquish. Cohesive single-level networks were dense, kin-biased, and moderately rank-structured, while cliquish single-level networks were more differentiated, slightly more kin-biased, and strongly rank-structured. As expected, multi-level networks were very modular and shaped by females ties to specific dominant males but varied in their kin biases. Taken together, these data suggest that (i) kin and rank biases are widespread but vary in their strength; (ii) male-centered subgroups are exclusive to multi-level systems; and (iii) increases in network modularity can emerge in response to heightened nepotism and male-centered clustering. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTWhat forces explain variation in primate societies? While kinship and dominance shape the social lives of many of our close relatives, it is unclear how their effects differ across species. Using a new database comprising decades of field research, we found that baboons and their close relatives fell into three general patterns: one in which groups were cohesive, kin-biased, and moderately rank-biased, another in which groups were more cliquish and nepotistic, and a third in which groups were divided into clusters centered on dominant males. Distinct primate societies may thus reflect differences in the strength of females nepotistic biases and the degree of males social influence.

animal behavior and cognition↗

A comparative network approach to assess the social-ecological underpinnings of zoonotic outbreaks at human-wildlife interfaces

O_LIPandemics caused by wildlife-origin pathogens, like COVID-19, highlight the importance of understanding the ecology of zoonotic transmission and outbreaks among wildlife populations at human-wildlife interfaces. To-date, the relative effects of human-wildlife and wildlife-wildlife interactions on the likelihood of such outbreaks remain unclear. C_LIO_LIIn this study, we used social network analysis and epidemiological Susceptible Infected Recovered (SIR) models, to track zoonotic outbreaks through wild animals joint propensities to engage in social-ecological co-interactions with humans, and their social grooming interactions with conspecifics. C_LIO_LIWe collected behavioral and demographic data on 10 groups of macaques (Macaca spp.) living in (peri)urban environments across Asia. Outbreak sizes predicted by the SIR models were related to structural features of the social networks, and particular properties of individual animals connectivity within those networks. C_LIO_LIOutbreak sizes were larger when the first-infected animal was highly central, in both types of networks. Across host-species, particularly for rhesus and bonnet macaques, the effects of network centrality on outbreak sizes were stronger through macaques human co-interaction networks compared to grooming networks. C_LIO_LIOur findings, independent of pathogen-transmissibility, suggest that wildlife populations in the Anthropocene are vulnerable to zoonosis more so due to their propensities to aggregate around anthropogenic factors than their gregariousness with conspecifics. Thus, the costs of zoonotic outbreaks may outweigh the potential/perceived benefits of jointly interacting with humans to procure anthropogenic food. From One Health perspectives, animals that consistently interact with both humans and conspecifics across time and space are useful targets for disease spillover assessments and control. C_LI

ecology↗