| Authors |
Karina A. Karenina, PhD, Senior Researcher at the Department of the Vertebrate Zoology at the Saint Petersburg State University (199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Universitetskaya Embankment, 7–9); iD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8200-6876; e-mail: k.karenina@spbu.ru
Ekaterina A. Berezina, Research Assistant at the Department of the Vertebrate Zoology at the Saint Petersburg State University (199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Universitetskaya Embankment, 7–9); iD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1792-6876; e-mail: herionnee@gmail.com
Andrey N. Giljov, PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of the Vertebrate Zoology at the Saint Petersburg State University (199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Universitetskaya Embankment, 7–9); iD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7533-1600; e-mail: zoology.gilev@gmail.com |
| Abstract |
In group-living animals, the social structure and organisation play a significant role in survival and reproduction. Understanding the social aspects of animal lives in the wild may be crucially important for effective conservation of threatened species. The fitness costs and benefits of living in a group are related to particular spatial positions individuals take within their groups. Age and sex of the individual is a major factor determining intra-group spatial position. In the present study, we investigated the within-group spatial positioning of individuals in the Critically Endangered Saiga tatarica (hereinafter – saiga). In saigas living under natural predation pressure in the Stepnoi State Nature Sanctuary (Astrakhan Region, Russia), we investigated the sex-age category of the first individual in the group, the inter-individual distance in the front individuals and the individuals following them, and the distribution of individuals of each sex-age category between various parts of the group. Three (summer) or four (autumn) sex-age categories of the individuals in the moving groups were recognised by direct observations in the field. In summer, adult females, accompanied by their calves, were the very first individuals in most saiga groups observed. This result agrees with the previous notion that experienced females often lead the saiga groups. However, further investigation is needed to confirm whether adult females do indeed take the role of a leader during long-distance group movements. In line with the results on other mammals, the majority of adult females moved in the central third of the group. Spatial preferences of adult females seem to be based on the risk minimisation as the central positions are likely the safest in the group. In autumn, juvenile males were moving first in the majority of the investigated groups probably because they were the most active and fast-moving sex-age category during this season. In addition, juvenile males and females were significantly more often observed in the first third of the group than in the central and the rear thirds. We suggest that despite the fact that the front edge of the group could be the most dangerous spatial position, foraging benefits may outweigh the increased risk for juvenile saigas. In contrast to some other mammals, adult males did not tend to move at the front edge and were equally often observed in the front, central and rear parts of saiga groups. Finally, our results showed that saigas closer to the front edge of the group maintained shorter inter-individual distances than the individuals positioned behind them. The tighter spacing could be used by front individuals to compensate for the increased risks associated with their within-group spatial position. |
| References |
Balmford A., Turyaho M. 1992. Predation risk and lek-breeding in Uganda kob. Animal Behaviour 44(1): 117–127. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80761-4
Beecham J.A., Farnsworth K.D. 1999. Animal group forces resulting from predator avoidance and competition minimization. Journal of Theoretical Biology 198(4): 533–548. DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0930
Bekenov A.B., Grachev I.A., Milner-Gulland E.J. 1998. The ecology and management of the Saiga antelope in Kazakhstan. Mammal Review 28(1): 1–52. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.1998.281024.x
Blanchard P., Sabatier R., Fritz H. 2008. Within-group spatial position and vigilance: a role also for competition? The case of impalas (Aepyceros melampus) with a controlled food supply. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62(12): 1863–1868. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-008-0615-3
Boinski S., Garber P.A. 2000. On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 811 p.
Bourjade M., Thierry B., Hausberger M., Petit O. 2015. Is leadership a reliable concept in animals? An empirical study in the horse. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0126344. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126344
Bumann D., Krause J., Rubenstein D. 1997. Mortality risk of spatial positions in animal groups: the danger of being in the front. Behaviour 134(13/14): 1063–1076. DOI: 10.1163/156853997X00403
Burger J., Gochfeld M. 1994. Vigilance in African mammals: differences among mothers, other females, and males. Behaviour 131(3/4): 153–169. DOI: 10.1163/156853994X00415
Carbone C., Thompson W.A., Zadorina L., Rowcliffe J.M. 2003. Competition, predation risk and patterns of flock expansion in barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis). Journal of Zoology 259(3): 301–308. DOI: 10.1017/S0952836902003278
Caro T. 1999. The behaviour–conservation interface. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14(9): 366–369. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01663-8
Couzin I.D., Krause J., Franks N.R., Levin S.A. 2005. Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433(7025): 513–516. DOI: 10.1038/nature03236
De Vos A., O'Riain M.J. 2010. Sharks shape the geometry of a selfish seal herd: experimental evidence from seal decoys. Biology Letters 6(1): 48–50. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0628
Di Blanco Y., Hirsch B.T. 2006. Determinants of vigilance behavior in the ring-tailed coati (Nasua nasua): the importance of within-group spatial position. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61(2): 173–182. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0248-3
Dumont B., Boissy A., Achard C., Sibbald A.M., Erhard H.W. 2005. Consistency of animal order in spontaneous group movements allows the measurement of leadership in a group of grazing heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 95(1–2): 55–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.005
Fourie B., Berezina E., Giljov A., Karenina K. 2021. Visual lateralization in artiodactyls: A brief summary of research and new evidence on saiga antelope. Laterality 26(1–2): 106–129. DOI: 10.1080/1357650X.2020.1852245
Gilev A., Karenina K. 2015. The significance of artesian wells for saigas within the Stepnoi Sanctuary, Astrakhan region. Saiga News 20: 15–17.
Giljov A., Malashichev Y., Karenina K. 2019. What do wild saiga antelopes tell us about the relative roles of the two brain hemispheres in social interactions?. Animal Cognition 22(5): 635–643. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-019-01259-0
Hamilton W.D. 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology 31(2): 295–311. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5
Hirsch B.T. 2007. Costs and benefits of within-group spatial position: a feeding competition model. Quarterly Review of Biology 82(1): 9–27. DOI: 10.1086/511657
Hirsch B.T. 2011. Within-group spatial position in ring-tailed coatis: balancing predation, feeding competition, and social competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65(2): 391–399. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-1056-3
Jamovi project. 2022. jamovi (version 2.3). Computer Software. Available from https://www.jamovi.org
Janson C.H. 1990a. Ecological consequences of individual spatial choice in foraging groups of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Animal Behaviour 40(5): 922–934. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80994-7
Janson C.H. 1990b. Social correlates of individual spatial choice in foraging groups of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Animal Behaviour 40(5): 910–921. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80993-5
Karimova T.Yu., Lushchekina A.A. 2018. Features of the spatial distribution and ethological structure of saiga population within the “Stepnoy" sanctuary (Astrakhan oblast). Ecosystems: Ecology and Dynamics 2(1): 73–91. DOI: 10.24411/2542-2006-2017-10004 [In Russian]
Karimova T.Y., Lushchekina A.A., Neronov V.M., Pyurvenova N.Y., Arylov Y.N. 2020. Biological Features of the Northwest Pre-Caspian Saiga Population at Different Sizes. Arid Ecosystems 10(4): 298–304. DOI: 10.1134/S2079096120040113
Karimova T.Y., Lushchekina A.A., Neronov V.M. 2021. Saiga populations of Russia and Kazakhstan: current status and retrospective analysis of some biological parameters. Arid Ecosystems 11(2): 164–172. DOI: 10.1134/S2079096121020074
Krause J. 1994. Differential fitness returns in relation to spatial position in groups. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 69(2): 187–206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1994.tb01505.x
Krause J., Ruxton G.D. 2002. Living in Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 211 p.
Krause J., Bumann D., Todt D. 1992. Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30(3–4): 177–180. DOI: 10.1007/BF00166700
Kühl A., Balinova N., Bykova E., Arylov Yu.N., Esipov A., Lushchekina A.A., Milner-Gulland E.J. 2009. The role of saiga poaching in rural communities: Linkages between attitudes, socio-economic circumstances and behaviour. Biological Conservation 142(7): 1442–1449. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.009
Lingle S. 2001. Anti-predator strategies and grouping patterns in white-tailed deer and mule deer. Ethology 107(4): 295–314. DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2001.00664.x
McDonald J.H. 2014. Nested ANOVA. In: Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing. P. 165–172.
Milner-Gulland E.J., Bukreeva O.M., Coulson T., Lushchekina A.A., Kholodova M.V., Bekenov A.B., Grachev I.A. 2003. Reproductive collapse in saiga antelope harems. Nature 422(6928): 135. DOI: 10.1038/422135a
Neronov V.M., Lushchekina A.A., Karimova T.Y., Arylova N.Y. 2012. Population dynamics of a key steppe species in a changing world: the critically endangered saiga antelope. In: Eurasian steppes. Ecological problems and livelihoods in a changing world. Dordrecht: Springer. P. 335–356. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-3886-7_12
Ron T., Henzi S.P., Motro U. 1996. Do female chacma baboons compete for a safe spatial position in a southern woodland habitat?. Behaviour 133(5/6): 475–490. DOI: 10.1163/156853996X00549
Rowcliffe J.M., Pettifor R.A., Carbone C. 2004. Foraging inequalities in large groups: quantifying depletion experienced by individuals in goose flocks. Journal of Animal Ecology 73(1): 97–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00783.x
Schmitt C.A., Di Fiore A. 2015. Predation risk sensitivity and the spatial organization of primate groups: A case study using GIS in lowland Woolly Monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156(1): 158–165. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22612
Sokolov V.E., Zhirnov L.V. (Eds.). 1998. The Saiga: phylogeny, systematics, ecology, conservation and use. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. 356 p. [In Russian]
Teichroeb J.A., White M.M.J., Chapman C.A. 2015. Vervet (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) intragroup spatial positioning: dominants trade-off predation risk for increased food acquisition. International Journal of Primatology 36(1): 154–176. DOI: 10.1007/s10764-015-9818-4
Zhirnov L.V. 1977. The Saiga. Ungulates. Moscow: Lesnaya Promyshlennost. P. 79–118. [In Russian] |
