| Literature DB >> 31940322 |
Dietmar Crailsheim1,2, Hans Peter Stüger3, Elfriede Kalcher-Sommersguter4, Miquel Llorente1,2,5.
Abstract
The long-term effects of early life adversities on social capacities have been documented in humans and wild-caught former laboratory chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). However, former pet and entertainment chimpanzees have received little attention to date. This study aimed to investigate the long-term effects of early life experience on 18 former pet and entertainment chimpanzees, based on social grooming data collected at a primate rescue centre over a 12-year period. Moreover, we also focused on the possible short-term effects that alterations to group composition might have on grooming patterns. For this purpose, we compared stable and unstable periods (i.e. where alterations to group composition occurred). We used two individual social network measures to analyse the grooming activity and the distribution of grooming among group mates for each individual. We could show that wild-caught chimpanzees were significantly more selective regarding their grooming partners and spent less time grooming when compared to their captive born companions. We also found that individuals who were predominantly housed without conspecifics during infancy spent less time grooming compared to those who were predominantly housed with conspecifics during infancy. Furthermore, we found that alterations to the group composition had short-term effects on the distribution of social grooming from a more equal distribution during periods with a stable group composition towards a more unequal and selective distribution during unstable periods. Thus, we conclude that the social grooming networks of former pet and entertainment chimpanzees are shaped not only by long-term effects such as early life experience, but also by short-term effects such as alterations to group composition. Remarkably, we found not only captive born chimpanzees but also wild-caught individuals to adjust their grooming to socially challenging situations by modifying their grooming distribution in a similar way.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31940322 PMCID: PMC6961849 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226947
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics and background information on the study population.
| Name | ID | Sex | (Estimated) Year of Birth | Origin | Age Category at Arrival at MONA | Predominant Housing Condition During Infancy (With or Without Conspecifics) | Former Pet or Entertainment Chimpanzee |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa | AFR | F | 2000 | wild | Sub-adult | without | Pet |
| Bea | BEA | F | 1985 | wild | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Bongo | BON | M | 2000 | captive | Sub-adult | with | Entertainment |
| Charly | CHA | M | 1989 | captive | Sub-adult | with | Entertainment |
| Cheeta | CHE | F | 1990 | wild | Adult | without | Entertainment |
| Coco | COC | F | 1994 | wild | Adult | without | Pet/ Entertainment |
| Juanito | JUA | M | 2003 | captive | Sub-adult | with | Pet/ Entertainment |
| Marco | MAR | M | 1984 | captive | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Nico | NIC | M | 2001 | captive | Sub-adult | without | Pet/ Entertainment |
| Pancho | PAN | M | 1990 | captive | Sub-adult | with | Entertainment |
| Romie | ROM | F | 1979 | wild | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Sara | SAR | F | 1998 | captive | Sub-adult | without | Pet/ Entertainment |
| Tico | TIC | M | 1985 | wild | Adult | without | Entertainment |
| Tom | TOM | M | 1985 | wild | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Toni | TON | M | 1983 | wild | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Toto | TOT | M | 1956 | wild | Adult | with | Entertainment |
| Victor | VIC | M | 1982 | captive | Adult | without | Pet/ Entertainment |
| Waty | WAT | F | 1996 | captive | Sub-adult | with | Entertainment |
Abbreviations: F = female, M = male.
1died in 2007,
2died in 2011,
3died in 2012,
4died in 2013.
*Chimpanzees often were used for several purposes before arriving at the rescue centre. The term "Entertainment" refers to any type of commercial use such as tourist attraction, street performing, media performing, circus performing and instances of zoo housing.
Chronology of the different observation time periods for the two social groups, Mutamba (M1-M6) and Bilinga (B1-B12), included in this study.
| Observation time period | Observation phase | Group size | Individuals | Group composition | Explanatory note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 2006–2007 | 4 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Pan | stable | |
| M2 | 2008 | 4 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Bon | unstable | Bon just joined the group |
| M3 | 2008–2011 | 4 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Bon | stable | |
| M4 | 2012–2017 | 5 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Bon, Jua | stable | |
| M5 | 2017 | 7 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Bon, Jua, Afr, Wat | unstable | Afr and Wat just joined the group |
| M6 | 2018 | 7 | Mar, Cha, Ton, Bon, Jua, Afr, Wat | stable | |
| B1 | 2006–2007 | 7 | Tot, Rom, Wat, Bon, Sar, Jua, Nic | stable | |
| B2 | 2010 | 9 | Tot, Rom, Wat, Sar, Jua, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Integration of Afr |
| B3 | 2010 | 9 | Tot, Rom, Wat, Sar, Jua, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Afr just joined the group |
| B4 | 2011 | 8 | Tot, Wat, Sar, Jua, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | stable | |
| B5 | 2011 | 7 | Tot, Wat, Sar, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Jua just left the group |
| B6 | 2012 | 6 | Tot, Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Integration of Tom |
| B7 | 2012 | 6 | Tot, Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Integration of Tom, Coc, Bea |
| B8 | 2013 | 5 | Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr | unstable | Right after passing of Tot |
| B9 | 2013–2015 | 8 | Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr, Tom, Coc, Bea | unstable | Integration of Tom, Coc, Bea |
| B10 | 2017 | 9 | Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr, Tom, Coc, Bea, Che | unstable | During fusion of Wat, Nic, Tic, Vic, Afr and Tom, Coc, Bea, Che |
| B11 | 2017 | 7 | Nic, Tic, Vic, Tom, Coc, Bea, Che | unstable | After separation of Wat, Afr |
| B12 | 2018 | 7 | Nic, Tic, Vic, Tom, Coc, Bea, Che | stable |
Reasons for the gaps in between the observation phases are explained in the Data sampling section
Averaged best vertex strength centrality (VSC) model and relative importance of the fixed effects.
| Estimate | Std. Error | Adjusted SE | z value | Pr(>|z|) | |
| (Intercept) | 2.198 | 0.514 | 0.518 | 4.243 | <0.001 |
| Sex | -1.045 | 0.317 | 0.321 | 3.257 | 0.001 |
| PHCinfant | 0.840 | 0.301 | 0.304 | 2.762 | 0.006 |
| Origin | -1.362 | 0.337 | 0.340 | 4.002 | <0.001 |
| TPstability | -0.226 | 0.435 | 0.440 | 0.513 | 0.608 |
| ArrivalAgeCat | -0.093 | 0.420 | 0.424 | 0.220 | 0.826 |
| Origin | Sex | PHCinfant | TPstability | ArrivalAgeCat | |
| Importance: | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
| N containing models: | 14 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
Output of the averaged best vertex strength centrality (VSC) model and relative importance of the fixed effects sex, predominant housing condition during infancy (PHCinfant), origin, arrival age category (ArrivalAgeCat) and stability of group composition (TPstability). All models included in this averaged results are presented in the supporting material (S1 Table). Signif. codes:
‘***’ ≤0.001
‘**’ ≤0.01
‘*’ ≤0.05
‘.’ ≤0.1
‘ ’ ≤1
Fig 1Confidence Interval plots of VSC and all significant fixed factors (Origin, PHCinfant, Sex).
Mean vertex strength centrality (±95% CI).
Fig 2Plot representing the effect of the interaction between Origin and PHCinfant on the grooming strength (VSC).
Each point on the plot is a predicted mean VSC value and each connection of two points describes the effect, based on the data of the VSC LMM model with TPstability, Origin, Sex, Arrival Age Category, Predominant Housing Condition during Infancy and the interaction of Origin and PHCinfant as fixed factors.
Averaged best deviation from edge weight disparity (DEWD) model and relative importance of the fixed effects.
| Estimate | Std. Error | Adjusted SE | z value | Pr(>|z|) | |
| (Intercept) | 0.165 | 0.103 | 0.104 | 1.586 | 0.112 |
| TPstability | 0.214 | 0.066 | 0.067 | 3.199 | 0.001 |
| Sex | 0.113 | 0.061 | 0.061 | 1.831 | 0.067 |
| Origin | 0.153 | 0.062 | 0.063 | 2.433 | 0.015 |
| PHCinfant | 0.056 | 0.057 | 0.058 | 0.973 | 0.331 |
| ArrivalAgeCat | 0.022 | 0.077 | 0.077 | 0.287 | 0.774 |
| TPstability | Origin | Sex | PHCinfant | ArrivalAgeCat | |
| Importance: | 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.30 |
| N containing models: | 16 | 15 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
Averaged best deviation from edge weight disparity (DEWD) model and relative importance of the fixed effects sex, predominant housing condition during infancy (PHCinfant), origin, arrival age category (ArrivalAgeCat) and stability of group composition (TPstability). All models included in this averaged results are presented in the supporting material (S2 Table). Signif. codes:
‘***’ ≤0.001
‘**’ ≤0.01
‘*’ ≤0.05
‘.’ ≤0.1
‘ ’ ≤1
Fig 3Confidence interval plots of DEWD and both significant fixed factors, Origin and TPstability.
Mean deviation from edge weight disparity (±95% CI).
Fig 4Plot representing the effect of the interaction between Origin and TPstability on the grooming distribution.
Each point on the plot is a predicted mean DEWD value and each connection of two points describes the effect, based on the data of the DEWD LMM model with TPstability, Origin, Sex, Arrival Age Category, Predominant Housing Condition during Infancy and the interaction of TPstability and Origin as fixed factors.