The Influence Of Dominance Rank And Affiliation Relationships On Self-directed Behavior In Female Tibetan Macaques(Macaca Thibetana)

Behavior patterns exhibited by an animal that are ’apparently irrelevant’ to its ongoing activity are called self-directed behavior (SDB). It exists in animals widely, such as arthropods, fish, birds and mammals. As the species most closing to human, nonhuman primates’SDB study had been widely spread. Self-directed behavior, such as self-scratching, self-grooming, self-touching, yawning and body shaking, have been widely used as a indicator of anxiety in non-human primates.Behavioral research in nonhuman primates, frequency of affiliation (such as allogrooming or time spent in contact) is regularly used to measure relationship quality, but the emotion variation of the individual was ignored. For example, subordinate individual will be anxiety with a dominant neighbor for fear of being attacked; or grooming given just for more food resources, thus the link between affiliation and relationship quality is not direct. We tested the validity of SDB as a measure of anxiety by examining the SDB response, and with assessing the affiliation relationship, we can further understand the relationship quantity.In this study, we collected self-directed behavior data of free-ranging Tibetan macaques(Macaca thibetand) at Huangshan, China (September2012—May2013) by using focal and behavioral sampling methods, continuous and instantaneous recording methods. We expect to determine:(1) the correlates between SDB and anxiety;(2) the effect of dyadic affiliation relationships on SDB.(1)There is no relationship between dominance rank and any SDB(overall:Rs=0.117, N=9,p=0.765; SS:Rs=-0.500, N=95,p=0.170; SG:Rs=0.283, N=9,p=0.460; ST:Rs=0.393, N=9,p=0.295; SHAKE:Rs=-0.017, N=9, p=0.966; YAWN:Rs=0.000, N=9,p=1.000).(2)A11subjects had≥1other individual within2m on71.7%(±9.3%) of the proximity point samples. Focal subjects engaged in significantly more SDB rates when their nearest neighbour was a dominant than the neighbour was a subordinate (t=5.146, N=9,p=0.001)or thier was no neighbour(t=4.141, N=9,p=0.003) within2m, in addition, they engaged in more SDB rates when there was no neighbor than their nearest neighbour was a subordinate within2m(t=3.455, N=9,p=0.008)(Figure1). Females engaged in more SDB rates when their nearest neighbour was a dominant than a subordinate (t=4.629, N=7,p=0.004) for female partners only(Figure2).Post conflict SDB rates with no reconciliation were significantly more than MC (t=8.051, N=9,p=0.000) and after reconciliation (t=8.339, N=8, p=0.000). The SDB rates before reconciliation were significantly more than MC (t=3.796, N=9,p=0.007) and after reconciliation (t=3.654, N=8,p=0.008). It was close to significant that the post conflict SDB rates with no reconciliation were more than before reconciliation (t=-2.006, N=8, p=0.085), while there was no significant differences between after reconciliation and MC (t=-0.900, N=8, p=0.398)(3)Comparisons of individual mean SDB rates with dominant partners of different affiliation relationships, we found that subjects engaged in more SDB rates with a neighbour of stongly affiliation relationship than of weakly affiliation relationship(t=-2.818, N=S, p=0.048). There was no significant differences between with a neighbour of stongly affiliation relationship and moderately affiliation relationship(t=-0.568, N=6, p=0.595), also, moderately affiliation relationship and weakly affiliation relationship(t=-0.377, N=5, p=0.726).Comparisons of individual mean SDB rates with subordinate partners of different affiliation relationships, we found no differences among them (stongly affiliation relationship and moderately affiliation relationship:t=2.641, N=3,p=0.118; stongly affiliation relationship and weakly affiliation relationship:t=0.417, N=4, p=0.705; moderately affiliation relationship and weakly affiliation relationship:t=0.676, N=6,p=0.529)(4)Postconflict with no reconciliation, the subjects engaged in significantly more SDB rates aggressed by individuals with stongly affiliation relationship than weakly affiliation relationship (t=0.900, N=4,p=0.003). But there were no differences when aggressed by stongly affiliation relationship and moderately affiliation relationship(t=0.987, n=5, p=0.379), moderately affiliation relationship and weakly affiliation relationship(t=1.353, N=5, p=0.247); Post conflict with reconciliation, subjects engaged significantly more SDB rates aggressed by strongly affiliation relationships before reconciliation than after reconciliation (t=3.008, N=8,p=0.020) and MC (t=3.006, N=8,p=0.020). There were no differences aggressed by moderately affiliation relationships before reconciliation and after reconciliation (t=2.955, N=4, p=0.060) or MC(t=2.039, N=4,p=0.134)In conclusion, SDB had a positive correlation with anxiety in Tibetan macaques, and the influence of dyadic affiliation relationship on SDB was reflected in our study.