Cited by 152Primate Behavior and EcologyWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Red colobus and Diana monkeys provide mutual protection against predators

BSHARY, REDOUAN, NOË, RONALD·1997·Animal Behaviour

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that red colobus monkeys,Procolobus badiusand Diana monkeys,Cercopithecus dianain Taı̈ National Park, Ivory Coast, associate to increase safety from predation. We recorded stratum use, exposure and vigilance of each species in the presence and in the absence of the partner species. In the presence of Diana monkeys, red colobus used lower strata more often, were more exposed to the forest floor and looked down less often while foraging. This suggests that red colobus reduce predation pressure from ground predators by associating with Diana. There are several indications that both species are less vulnerable to birds of prey when associated: red colobus looked sideways less often and were more exposed to the front, Diana monkeys used greater heights and were more exposed to the front, to the rear and from above. We also asked whether specific sentinel qualities of Diana monkeys might explain why other sympatric monkey species additionally seek their presence. When groups of various species compositions were approached by an observer, or confronted with an eagle model, Diana monkeys raised the alarm in most cases. Since neither monkey species improves its foraging success when associated, this study shows that predation can both maintain and be the ultimate cause of interspecific associations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/anbe.1997.0553

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moynihan, 1962, The organisation and probable evolution of some mixed species flocks of neotropical birds, Smithson. misc. Collns, 143, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BSHARY, R., & NOË, R.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Animal Behaviour
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-12
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
1461-1474
ISSN
0003-3472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017114024
Cited by
152
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Animal Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
red colobus, Diana monkey, Cercopithecus diana, interspecific association, sentinel behavior, sustained attention, predation risk, raptors, alarm calling, sympatric primates, Taï National Park

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review