Oystercatchers rule, OK!.?

Sutherland and Parker1xSutherland, W.J. and Parker, G.A. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998; 13: 410Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (8)See all References1 write ‘Oystercatchers [Haematopus ostralegus] are wonderful animals for study, but almost all the work on interference in vertebrates concerns this one species!’ However, if anyone wants detailed data on interference competition among individuals in relation to the physical or social environment in which the interference occurred, or the developmental trajectory of the individuals involved, then primatology is as rich a mine as is oystercatcherology – and one that has reached some parts that oystercatcherology might not have reached. If one primate genus is needed to match Haematopus, I give you Cebus, the capuchin monkey.Sutherland and Parker pose four key questions. Primatology has posed the same questions, and long since has begun to produce detailed, quantitative answers. From the very start, one of its own key areas of research has been to correlate variation among individuals with variation in their behavior, and ultimately to variation in survival, mating and rearing abilities of individuals.(1) ‘What is the mechanism of interference?’ Primates are supplanted either nonaggressively, or with threats or after fights; and as a result of fights in which they are outweighed, or outskilled or outnumbered.(2) ‘What is the basis of individual differences?’ In primate groups, body weight is one basis, gender another. In addition, reproductive state, achievement of a competitive reputation (i.e. position in a dominance hierarchy), presence of allies and social skill at cultivating allies all also play a part. The relative influence of each basis depends on the situation, for which primatology can produce quantitative substantiation.(3) ‘By what mechanisms do such differences lead to differences in intake?’ Work on wild and captive primates shows that prior, or longer, access to richer resources, shorter travel to the next resource and less interruption at any one resource are just three mechanisms. And, of course, the magnitude of the effect of the mechanisms on intake (and the consequences for reproductive output, and sometimes even mortality) changes with the distribution of resources.(4) ‘Is there a strict hierarchy such that interference only results from those higher in the hierarchy, whereas those below have no impact?’ Not at all. Subordinate primates can have a strong impact on dominant individuals when, for instance, the subordinate's allies are present. Whether the allies help correlates with their relationship to the subordinate, be they kin, mates or just ‘friends’. Moreover, quantitative data show that the ‘steepness‘ of the hierarchy (i.e. the contrast in resource-holding power of the opponents) varies across primates species and the situation, so affecting the efficacy of interference competition up and down the hierarchy.Correspondence to TREE does not allow space for precise referencing of my claims about what primatology knows, but some considerable substantiation from a decade ago, including for Cebus, can be found in Ref. 2xBehaviour. 1988; 105: 1–186CrossrefSee all ReferencesRef. 2; and the answers to the four key questions are still being refined3xSaito, C. Anim. Behav. 1996; 51: 967–980Crossref | Scopus (75)See all References3.Primatology has definitely been late in applying the beautiful quantitative modeling that Sutherland and Parker are so justly famous for, but there is modeling in primatology. Thus, unless Sutherland and Parker mean something different by ‘work’ than detailed observation, experimentation, and modeling, I present primates in general, Cebus in particular, as other vertebrates that rival oystercatchers in the detail and extent of work on them concerning interference competition.