Agonism and dominance in female blue monkeys

Agonistic behavior features prominently in hypotheses that explain how social variation relates to ecological factors and phylogenetic constraints. Dominance systems vary along axes of despotism, tolerance, and nepotism, and comparative studies examine cross-species patterns in these classifications. To contribute to such studies, we present a comprehensive picture of agonistic behavior and dominance relationships in wild female blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis), an arboreal guenon, with data from 9 groups spanning 18 years. We assessed where blue monkeys fall along despotic, tolerant, and nepotistic spectra, how their dominance system compares to other primates, primarily cercopithecines, and whether their agonistic behavior matches socioecological model predictions. Blue monkeys showed low rates of mainly low-intensity agonism and little counter-aggression. Rates increased with rank and group size. Dominance asymmetry varied at different organizational levels, being more pronounced at the level of interactions than dyad or group. Hierarchies were quite stable, had moderate-to-high linearity and directional consistency and moderate steepness. There was clear maternal rank inheritance, but inconsistent adherence to Kawamura's rules. There was little between-group variation, although hierarchy metrics showed considerable variation across group-years. Overall, blue monkeys have moderately despotic, moderately tolerant, and nepotistic dominance hierarchies. They resemble other cercopithecines in having significantly linear and steep hierarchies with a generally stable, matriline-based structure, suggesting a phylogenetic basis to this aspect of their social system. Blue monkeys most closely match Sterck et al.'s [1997] Resident-Nepotistic-Tolerant dominance category, although they do not fully conform to predictions of any one socioecological model. Our results suggest that socioecological models might better predict variation within than across clades, thereby incorporating both ecological variables and phylogenetic constraints. Our findings also highlight the need for clearer definitions of socioecologically relevant dominance categories, which would ideally derive from quantitative measures of dominance behavior. Intraspecific and methodological variation may, however, be a challenge.