Increased alertness and moderate ingroup cohesion in bonobos’ response to outgroup cues

James Brooks; Karlijn van Heijst; Amanda Epping; Seok Hwan Lee; Aslihan Niksarli; Amy Pope; Zanna Clay; Mariska E Kret; Jared Taglialatela; Shinya Yamamoto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307975

. 2024 Aug 21;19(8):e0307975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307975

Increased alertness and moderate ingroup cohesion in bonobos’ response to outgroup cues

James Brooks ^1,^2,^3,^*, Karlijn van Heijst ¹, Amanda Epping ⁴, Seok Hwan Lee ², Aslihan Niksarli ⁵, Amy Pope ⁶, Zanna Clay ⁷, Mariska E Kret ^8,⁹, Jared Taglialatela ^4,¹⁰, Shinya Yamamoto ^1,²

Editor: Rachael Miller (Harrison)¹¹

¹Institute for Advanced Study, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

²Wildlife Research Center, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

³Kumamoto Sanctuary, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

⁴Ape Cognition and Conservation Initiative, Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America

⁵Department of Anthropology, Yeditepe University, İstanbul, Türkiye

⁶Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

⁷Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom

⁸Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

⁹Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

¹⁰Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, United States of America

¹¹Anglia Ruskin University, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: jamesgerardbrooks@gmail.com

Roles

James Brooks: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Karlijn van Heijst: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Amanda Epping: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Seok Hwan Lee: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Aslihan Niksarli: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Amy Pope: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Zanna Clay: Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Mariska E Kret: Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Jared Taglialatela: Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Shinya Yamamoto: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Rachael Miller (Harrison): Editor

PMCID: PMC11338468 PMID: 39167568

Abstract

In a number of species, including humans, perceived outgroup threat can promote ingroup cohesion. However, the distribution and selection history of this association across species with varied intergroup relations remains unclear. Using a sample of 8 captive groups (N = 43 individuals), we here tested whether bonobos, like chimpanzees, show more affiliative ingroup behaviour following perception of outgroup cues (unfamiliar male long-distance vocalisations). We used comparable methods to our previous study of captive chimpanzees, and found that, although weaker, there was an association for more frequent social grooming in response to the outgroup condition than the control condition, alongside more alert posture and increased self-directed behaviour. This provides preliminary evidence for an ancestral origin to the proximate association between outgroup cues and ingroup cohesion, at least prior to the Pan-Homo split, and suggests the presence of intergroup competition in our last common ancestor.

1. Introduction

In a variety of species, including humans, perceived outgroup threat elicits ingroup cohesion. However, no direct comparative studies between species have been conducted, which are necessary for assessing the relevance of socio-ecological factors. Theoretical perspectives predict an association between intergroup competition and group cohesion [1–5], suggesting this association may be stronger in species which naturally face stronger intergroup competition. Here, we studied the impact of perception of outgroup cues on ingroup cohesion in bonobos (Pan paniscus), who, despite their close phylogenetic relation to both humans and chimpanzees (P. troglodytes), lack lethal intergroup aggression. We followed the protocol and observation methods of Brooks et al. [6], which found perception of outgroup cues can promote ingroup cohesion in captive chimpanzees, in order to directly compare the impact of hearing the vocalisations of unfamiliar outgroup members on ingroup social behaviour between two sister species differing in natural intergroup relations.

While the association between outgroup threat and ingroup cohesion has long been known in humans, only more recently have empirical studies examined the effect across other species. Of these, the majority have focused on cooperative breeders (e.g. green woodhoopoes [Phoeniculus purpureus], dwarf mongooses [Helogale parvula], cichlid fish [Neolamprologus pulcher]), which find that across a range of taxa groups tend to unite together when presented with signs of an outgroup, at least in the short term [7–13]. However, the form and function of group-living and the social and ecological contexts of group relations varies, and there have been few studies looking at this effect in other grouping and breeding structures. Of them, studies targeting primate species have found varied results including both increases and decreases in ingroup cohesion after perceiving outgroup cues [14–18]. However, each has focused on one species at a time, and each employs differing methods, meaning the role of grouping structure and wild intergroup relations could not be directly assessed. Two comparative phylogenetic analyses of primate species on broader measures of group cohesion have been conducted, with one showing no association between intensity of intergroup competition and absolute grooming frequency [19] and another (focused primarily on Afro-Eurasian monkeys) finding an effect of intergroup behaviour only on female grooming density [20]. Neither of these studies addressed the proximate changes within species as driven by outgroup cues, but rather the long-term behavioural patterns of each species.

In chimpanzees, one of humans’ two closest living relatives, studies in both wild [17] and captive [6] contexts have found increased group cohesion when presented with proximate outgroup cues. These studies provide evidence that the association is shared between humans and chimpanzees, but do not indicate whether it arose prior to our divergence or emerged independently in each species. While human intergroup relations cover the full spectrum from warfare to peaceful cooperation, intergroup relations in wild chimpanzees are universally hostile and involve both lethal aggression as well as group-level cooperation in territory defence [17, 21]. To date, there is little data to suggest whether the tendency to “unite against a common enemy” is conserved across the Pan-Homo lineage or whether it crucially depends on intense intergroup competition in more recent evolutionary history. Direct comparison to bonobos, our other closest relative, can test between these alternatives. If the behavioral phenotype is present in all 3 species of great ape, that would support the hypothesis that ingroup cohesion following perceived outgroup cues is an ancestral characteristic in the Pan-Homo lineage.

Bonobos diverged just 1–2 million years ago from chimpanzees, with both species diverging from humans around 5–6 million years ago [22–24]. Compared to chimpanzees, wild bonobos have significantly more tolerant intergroup relations overall [25, 26]. While intergroup competition does exist [27] and coalitionary aggression by males against outgroup members has been observed [28], lethal aggression has not been reported and intergroup encounters can involve cross-group grooming, play, and sexual behaviour, as well as multi-day foraging associations [25, 29]. Given these apparently striking differences in inter-group relations among chimpanzees and bonobos, we thus aimed to directly compare the response to perception of outgroup cues in bonobos to that reported in chimpanzees [6]. The presence of an association between outgroup cues and ingroup cohesion in bonobos would provide some evidence to distinguish between hypotheses on the emergence of this association in the human lineage. We formed two ultimate hypotheses for the evolutionary link between outgroup cues and ingroup cohesion in bonobos, each with a proximate hypothesis for the direct impact of hearing unfamiliar outgroup vocalizations on bonobo behaviour.

The first ultimate hypothesis, the ‘conserved association’ hypothesis, suggests that a proximate association between outgroup perception and ingroup cohesion is conserved across Homo and Pan, and that it does not depend on actual recent history of intense intergroup competition. This hypothesis suggests that the phenomenon emerged at some point prior to the Pan-Homo split and can be found in bonobos despite not being under active selection in the modern socioecology. This therefore gave rise to the social cohesion hypothesis for the proximate effects of outgroup vocalizations on ingroup behaviour (developed in Brooks et al., suggesting that bonobo groups will become more socially cohesive in the outgroup condition compared to the control condition. The social cohesion hypothesis more specifically predicts increased social cohesion through predictions: (a) closer spatial proximity, (b) increased affiliation in social grooming and social play, and (c) decreased aggression, alongside (d) increased vigilance and stress observed in rest, posture, and self-directed behaviour.

Alternatively, the second ultimate hypothesis was the ‘recent intergroup competition’ hypothesis. This suggests instead that the phenomenon depends crucially on recent intense intergroup competition in a species’ environment of selection and therefore predicts that bonobos, with their more tolerant intergroup relations, would not show the same pattern as humans and chimpanzees. This would not be able to provide any indication of whether the association could be found in the common ancestor, but would either way suggest that the association likely depends on intergroup competition in more recent evolutionary history. On a proximate level, this ultimate hypothesis gives rise to the null hypothesis for outgroup stimuli’s effect on ingroup cohesion (predictions a, b, and c above) but remains neutral on their effect on vigilance and stress behaviour (prediction d).

Employing the same design to allow a systematic species comparison, we therefore aimed to test the social cohesion hypothesis of Brooks et al. [6] regarding the proximate consequences of hearing outgroup long-distance vocalizations (bonobo high hoots), relative to control vocalizations (crow ‘ka’ calls), on ingroup social behaviour in captive bonobos. While captive apes may not be representative of wild populations in several important ways, presentation of outgroup stimuli has proven effective at modulating behaviour in a range of primate species in more carefully controlled contexts, and we therefore aimed to follow consistent methodologies as the prior study with captive chimpanzees. The social cohesion hypothesis predicted that individuals would become more affiliative and less aggressive within the group, as well as more vigilant overall, after being presented with the outgroup cues [6]. It thus predicted that, relative to the control condition, bonobos in the outgroup condition would show increased rates of social grooming, decreased aggression, and increased social play, alongside less rest, more self-directed behaviour, and a higher proportion of their rest sitting upright. The alternative, the null hypothesis, is that there would be no measurable change to social behaviour following the outgroup calls, relative to the control condition.

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

8 groups of captive bonobos at 5 sites (N = 43, 17 males and 26 females) participated in this study. Groups ranged in size from 3 to 10 individuals. In 3 groups (CZ, FZ1, FZ2) there was a dependent offspring (<2 years old) who was not included in data analysis (final N = 40). Participating sites were: Kumamoto Sanctuary (KS), Japan; Ape Cognition and Conservation Initiative (AI), USA; Twycross Zoo (TZ), UK; and Frankfurt Zoo (FZ) and Cologne Zoo (CZ), Germany. At KS, AI, TZ, and FZ, two bonobo groups are housed in adjacent enclosures with visual and auditory access to one another. At AI and KS, group membership rotates in a simulated fission-fusion social system, while at TZ and FZ groups are kept mostly consistent, except for occasional individual movements for management reasons. These grouping patterns are similar to those of chimpanzees in Brooks et al.; in this prior study 3 groups lived in a simulated fission-fusion environment, while 2 groups had relatively fixed membership, also with some visual and auditory access between groups. One of the groups in Frankfurt was observed only for 3 trials due to observer availability. Only one group at TZ was included in this study. In all cases, as in Brooks et al. [6], subgroups were treated as separate groups in all analyses. Membership of each group was constant for all trials at all sites, except for one individual (Lopori) joining the focal group for one trial at TZ. Enclosure sizes were comparable or larger to those of the chimpanzees in [6]. The most significant difference in study population relative to the previous study was the sex structure of group, where in Brooks et al. [6] there were 15 individuals in 3 all-male groups, and 14 individuals in 2 single-male multi-female groups, while in the present study most groups were multi-male, multi-female, except for KS1 (n = 3), which was all-female, and AI1 (n = 3) and KS2 (n = 3), which were both single-female multi-male.

2.2 Ethical statement

Ethical approval and relevant permissions were obtained at all sites involved in this study. Ethical approval numbers were WRC-2022-KS (for KS), WRC-2022-023A (for collaborating zoos), and IACUC Animal Use Protocol # 210929–01 for AI. No major changes were made to the daily care routine of bonobos at any site for the purpose of this study, and as such were not food or water deprived at any time.

2.3 Data collection

Data was live coded and followed the observation methods of Brooks et al. [6]. No changes were made to the observational protocol between the two studies. In short, at two-minute scans, interindividual distances of all dyads (estimated into 4 categories: in contact, within arm’s reach, <3m away, and >3m away) were recorded, alongside individual behaviour of each group member at the time of scanning. In addition, all occurrences of play, aggression, and sexual behaviour, along with identity of individuals involved, were recorded. Observers were consistent across all trials within groups, and observed only one group at a time (one observer worked at 2 sites; FZ and CZ, and all other observers observed one group each). All observers trained in pairs on-site for several practice days prior to experimental trials, until reaching a high level of confidence with consistency in data recording. Due to practical constraints, observers were not blind to the conditions and hypotheses being tested.

2.4 Experimental protocol

All procedures followed Brooks et al. [6], involving 30 minutes of observation before, during and after playback, the pre, playback, and post phases, respectively. The main difference from the prior study of chimpanzees was the absence of a food phase (when semi-monopolizable enrichment tubes were provided in the 30 minutes after sound presentation), which was replaced by a “post” phase during which no sounds or stimuli played. This change was due to the inherent variation across sites in enrichment strategies and limitations in caretaker time, where we instead observed the after-effects of stimuli presentation which could be performed comparably at all sites. Only the pre and during phases were observed at TZ due to constraints on timing of care routines. No additional food was provisioned during any observation period, and feedings were kept consistent between morning and afternoon sessions across all trial days. Specifically, in some sites this entailed food being provided directly before the pre phase in both sessions meaning the pre phase was initially a feeding period (and thus not directly comparable to other phases or between sites).

Four days of experiments were run for each group (except for one group at FZ, where only three trials were recorded). Each day involved a morning and afternoon session. On each experimental day, one session was an outgroup trial, and the other control trial, with orders or which condition was in the morning following an ABBA design, which was then counterbalanced across groups. At sites where multiple groups were observed, all groups were presented with the same condition at the same time (due to being in auditory contact of one another).

2.5 Stimuli

Stimuli consisted of 12 unique long-distance high-hoot vocalizations of distinct unfamiliar male bonobos. All outgroup recordings used in this study were of bonobos living in DRC and thus were unknown to all study participants. High hoots were chosen as the closest analogy to chimpanzee pant hoot and used in long-distance communication [30, 31], though we did not formally select vocalizations based on the social context of their production. Control crow “ka” vocalizations were the same recordings as those used in Brooks et al. (itself following Kutsukake et al. [32]). It should be noted that due to the geographical distribution across sites, the resident corvid species (and therefore their vocalizations) differ. We did not adapt the control vocalizations to each site, so it is possible there is some variation in the absolute novelty of the control stimuli between groups. As in the prior study, four distinct recordings (of four distinct individuals) of 15 seconds each were played in a given trial (repeated or cut to exactly 15 seconds), each separated by one minute of silence. 15 minutes after the start of the first sound, the same four sounds were repeated. Stimuli were played at 80-90dB measured from 10m away (following Kutsukake et al., and played from speakers placed 10-20m away from the bonobo enclosures (due to some limitations on consistency across sites). The first three trials were all unique stimuli, while the last included 4 sounds randomly selected from the first 12 of that category (outgroup bonobo or crow), with the same sounds used in the final trial across all groups. Example stimuli can be found in S1 File.

2.6 Analysis

Analysis strategies followed Brooks et al. [6]. A CLMM was run on proximity data (with each scan for each dyad representing one data point) from R package ordinal [33]. The dependent variable was closeness between dyads in four ordinal categories; 1 (in contact), 2 (within arm’s reach), 3 (<3m), and 4 (>3m away). Binomial GLMMs with logit link function were run on scan behaviours using the glmer function from package lme4 [34], with each scan for each individual representing one data point, as either showing or not showing the given behaviour. For posture, data was first restricted to the data where individuals were resting, and a binomial GLMM was run on whether the individual was sitting or lying down. Binomial GLMMs were also run on all occurrence behaviours, with each trial for each individual representing one data point, as either showing or not showing the given behaviour (in order not to inflate the data when the same individual(s) repeatedly show the same behaviour within a given trial).

All models were structured in similar ways: As fixed effects, they included condition (outgroup vs. control), trial (1–4, normalized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1), and their interaction. As random effects, they included random slopes of the fixed effects as well as time since start of the phase (for scan behaviors and proximity, normalized) and time of day (morning or afternoon) on the random effect of individual (nested within group). The proximity data had the same random slopes with random effects dyad ID, individual 1, and individual 2 (all nested within group), where individual 1 and individual 2 were randomly assigned to include both individuals in the dyad. In all models where possible the bobyqa optimizer https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246869 - pone.0246869.ref033[35] was used. In the case of non-convergent models, we removed random effects in the following way (defined a priori in Brooks et al.): first, the random slopes for time of day then time since start of phase, then the nesting of individuals within group, then the random slope of the interaction between condition and trial, then the random slope of trial, then the random slope of condition. This sequence was chosen in order to retain the fixed effects whenever possible prioritizing the effect of condition as this was the main hypothesis to be tested in this study, and time since start of phase included more detail and is expected to have had a higher impact than time of day. The same structured simplification was carried out with singular models and the results below present convergent non-singular models, while the maximal singular models are available in S1 File. For the analyses below, we give the formula of the final converging non-singular model. To examine the impact of participant sex, admittedly as exploratory analyses not conducted in the chimpanzee study (due to absence of multi-male multi-female groups) the final proximity and behavioural models were also run with an additional interaction between participant sex (or dyad sex pairing) and condition.

Final model structure for the proximity data for the playback phase was: proximity ~ trial * condition + (condition+trial|dyad) + (condition+trial|id1) + (condition+trial|id2); and for the post phase was: proximity ~ trial * condition + (condition*trial|dyad) + (condition*trial|id1) + (condition*trial|id2). Final model structure for self-directed behaviour in the post phase, rest in both the playback and post phases, and sitting in both the playback and post phases was: behavior ~ trial * condition + (condition*trial|individual). Final model structure for grooming in the playback phase was: behavior ~ trial * condition + (condition+trial|individual). Final model structure for self-directed behaviour in the playback phase and grooming in the post phase was: behavior ~ trial * condition + (condition|individual). Final model structure for all models of all occurrence behavioural data was: behavior ~ trial * condition + (1|individual).

Significance was calculated using chi-squared likelihood ratio test with the drop1 function [34] which uses full—null model comparison for hypothesis testing and an alpha value of 0.05. Specifically, it compares the full model to one generated by dropping only the fixed effect or interaction of interest but keeping other fixed and random effects the same. If the interaction between condition and trial was not significant, the model was run again with the interaction term removed. This procedure was followed for all variables of interest in separate models for both the playback and food phases. We additionally calculated odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals for all significant effects. For interactions, the odds ratio represents the odds of a one unit increase when both variables are present over and above the main effects. For example, if there is an interaction between trial and condition the interaction term represents how much the response changes with every trial in the outgroup condition over and above the change that is due to trial and condition alone.

3. Results

There was no change in proximity in either phase by condition (playback phase: χ² = 0.31, p = 0.58; post phase: χ² = 0.54, p = 0.46; Fig 1).

Fig 2 shows behavioural results. There was a significant interaction between condition and trial in rates of self-directed behaviour in the playback phase (β = 0.44, SE = 0.17, χ² = 7.09, p = 0.0078; OR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.15), but no effect of condition in the post phase (χ² = 0.094, p = 0.76). There was a significant interaction between condition and trial in rates of grooming in both phases (playback phase: β = 1.21, SE = 0.15, χ² = 76.60, p < 0.001; OR = 3.36 (95% CI: 2.53, 4.47); post phase: β = 0.30, SE = 0.099, χ² = 9.29, p = 0.0023; OR = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.64)). Interaction plots for significant interaction effects can be found in S1 File.

There was a non-significant marginal effect of condition on rest in the playback phase (β = -0.29, SE = 0.17, χ² = 2.88, p = 0.090; OR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.54, 1.04)), but no effect in the post phase (χ² = 0.29, p = 0.59). There was a significant main effect of condition on proportion of rest time sitting upright in the playback phase (more upright posture in the outgroup condition; β = 0.93, SE = 0.27, χ² = 9.57, p = 0.0020; OR = 2.55 (95% CI: 1.50, 4.32)) but only a marginal effect of condition in the post phase (β = -0.80, SE = 0.48, χ² = 2.72, p = 0.099; OR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.18, 1.14)). There was no effect of condition on rates of aggression in either phase (playback phase: χ² = 2.01, p = 0.16; post phase: χ² = 1.89, p = 0.17). There was no effect of condition on rates of play in the playback phase (χ² = 1.94, p = 0.16), but a significant interaction between condition and trial on rates of play in the post phase (β = -1.44, SE = 0.63, χ² = 5.87, p = 0.015; OR = 0.24 (95% CI: 0.068, 0.81)), and no effect of condition on rates of sexual behaviour in either phase (playback phase: χ² = 0.00, p = 1; post phase:: χ² = 1.71, p = 0.19).

We found no interactions between condition and sex (or dyad type for proximity data) on any measured behaviours in either phase (proximity: playback phase: χ² = 0.22, p = 0.90; post phase: χ² = 1.12, p = 0.57; self-directed behaviour: playback phase: χ² = 2.46, p = 0.12; post phase: χ² = 1.42, p = 0.23; grooming: playback phase: χ² = 0.97, p = 0.32; post phase: χ² = 0.14, p = 0.70; rest: playback phase: χ² = 0.77, p = 0.78; post phase: χ² = 1.20, p = 0.27; posture: playback phase: χ² = 1.64, p = 0.20; post phase: χ² = 0.67, p = 0.41; aggression: playback phase: χ² = 0.22, p = 0.64; post phase: χ² = 0.073, p = 0.79; play: playback phase: χ² = 0.049, p = 0.82; post phase: χ² = 1.15, p = 0.28; sexual behaviour: playback phase: χ² = 0, p = 1; post phase: χ² = 0.49, p = 0.48).

4. Discussion

Previously, we showed that, similar to humans, captive chimpanzees show enhanced ingroup cohesion in response to perception of outgroup cues [6]. In the current study, we found a similar behavioural pattern in captive bonobos, whereby hearing the vocalizations of outgroup bonobos resulted in enhanced affiliation (prediction b; in social grooming but not in play) as well as vigilance and stress (prediction d; in self-directed behaviour and a greater proportion of rest sitting upright, but not in overall rate of rest), but did not impact spatial proximity (prediction a) or aggression (prediction c). All significant effects (except the proportion of rest sitting upright) interacted with trial, suggesting the effect was not uniform or universal. The pattern of significant and nonsignificant effects was similar to that of the chimpanzees except for the lack of effect of condition on proximity or rate of rest, but estimated coefficients for all significant effects were generally low, suggesting the effect of outgroup perception is less pronounced in bonobos than in chimpanzees. While most behavioural changes were short-lived and disappeared in the post phase, only grooming remained significant through both phases (although notably with small effect size). Overall, these results generally support a moderate interpretation of the social cohesion hypothesis for the proximate effects of outgroup stimuli on bonobo ingroup social behaviour, with some evidence for greater affiliation but a weaker pattern than that observed in chimpanzees. This suggests that while some elements of the association between outgroup threat and ingroup cohesion may not crucially depend on sustained recent lethal intergroup competition, it does likely decrease in intensity as intergroup competition becomes less central to a species’ socio-ecology, as has been suggested for bonobos [25]. Together, these findings suggest further that the association may be best-understood an adaptive response to intergroup competition that is slow to disappear within the Pan lineage (or can be sustained even under the relatively weak intergroup competition of extant bonobos) making it a possible case of phylogenetic inertia (where ancestral phenomena are maintained despite losing selective advantage) [36].

While bonobos in the wild do not face as serious intergroup competition as chimpanzees, this study suggests they still may tend to become overall more socially cohesive when presented with cues of the outgroup. Both species also sat upright and engaged in self-directed behaviour more in the outgroup condition, consistent with increased vigilance, though in the case of bonobos (where intergroup encounters can be affiliative) these could also be interpreted as social anticipation rather than vigilance per se. In any case, bonobos, like chimpanzees, were more alert in the outgroup condition.

However, not all results we found in chimpanzees replicated to bonobos, despite a highly similar design. In the playback phase (the phase for which direct species comparisons are meaningful), there was no effect of condition on spatial proximity or on rates of rest. As with chimpanzees, several effects in the playback phase were interactions with trial (in chimpanzees: rest, posture, social grooming alongside main effect of self-directed behaviour, in bonobos: self-directed behaviour and social grooming alongside main effect of posture). However, when examining the change across trials, the pattern in bonobos is more suggestive of sensitization than habituation (see S1 File). This pattern was consistent across all the measures which had a significant interaction with trial, and opposite to the pattern that seemed more indicative of habituation found in chimpanzees [6]. At present, the reason for this difference, and how the pattern may change after more trials, remains speculative. Differences between sites make it difficult to interpret whether this opposing pattern is a real species difference or due to other factors that differed between the populations that were studied (such as group compositions, presence of juveniles and infants, and rearing histories). If the same species difference can be replicated in other groups, it would indicate an unexpected finding warranting more direct future study, but given the present results any interpretations should remain cautious.

There were no effects on all occurrence data in bonobos, except for play in the post phase, where rates of play in this phase decreased relative to the control condition. This was contrary to the social cohesion hypothesis, though consistent with the decreased play described in the playback phase in chimpanzees (possibly a consequence of increased vigilance). Besides this decrease in play, the only all occurrence effects in the chimpanzee study were found in the food phase, so despite lack of effects the pattern is similar given that no food was presented to bonobos. Rates of sex remained low across conditions and phases in bonobos, making direct comparisons between conditions difficult. Still, it is noteworthy that rates of sexual behaviour did not increase given the importance of GG-rubbing reported in wild intergroup encounters [25]. There are several possibilities for this lack of effect, including that the experimental design was not suited to bring about effects on rates of socio-sexual behaviour (we used only auditory stimuli which may be less salient than visual or olfactory cues), that the sex of the vocalization producer affects behavioural response (we here used male vocalizations to be consistent with the chimpanzee study, discussed further below), or that the spaced out and individual sound recordings were not salient enough to elicit the social tension which may be relieved by sexual behaviour.

Of future studies, hormonal work can help answer some of the most immediate questions and will be necessary to help reveal the specific physiological mechanisms by which outgroup cues induce ingroup cohesion. A bonobo study following the methods of Kutsukake et al. [32], which found outgroup cues caused higher salivary cortisol alongside increased vigilance in chimpanzees will be an important and relatively straightforward species comparison. Cheng et al. [27] reported increased urinary cortisol, a hormonal indictor of stress, during intergroup encounters in wild bonobos, consistent with earlier findings from chimpanzees [37], suggesting similarity between the species. The oxytocinergic system, further has been implicated in preparation for and engagement in intergroup encounters in wild chimpanzees [37, 38], outgroup social attention in both bonobos and chimpanzees [39], and social grooming in both bonobos [40] and chimpanzees [41]. Given oxytocin’s importance in both intergroup competition and ingroup cohesion [42], it may form an important part of the proximate hormonal mechanism responsible for eliciting short-term ingroup cohesion in response to outgroup cues. A crucial remaining question in the case of bonobos is whether urinary oxytocin is related to intergroup behaviour in the wild. Notably, Wirobski et al. [43] found similar behavioural effects, supported by different hormonal mechanisms, in the territorial behaviour of wolves compared to dogs. In wolves, but not dogs, urinary oxytocin correlated with territorial behaviour (ground scratching, patrolling along the fence, simultaneous marking) and synchronized locomotion, while the absolute rates of these behaviours did not differ between the species. It thus remains possible that the effects described here and in Brooks et al. [6], while behaviourally similar, may be supported by different hormonal mechanisms. Wild studies following Samuni et al. [38] will be necessary to reveal whether bonobo intergroup behaviour in natural contexts is supported by the oxytocinergic system.

Sex differences are another clear future direction especially in light of sex differences found in Samuni et al. [17] in wild chimpanzees and Mirville et al. [15] in wild mountain gorillas. While we did not detect any differences between the responses of male and female bonobos, this should not be considered evidence against the existence of sex effects but rather inconclusive, given the low sample sizes and limited naturalism of this study. Bonobos and chimpanzees differ not only in intensity of intergroup competition, but also in the sex which is more involved in intergroup encounters (in chimpanzees males predominantly engage in intergroup encounters, though with varied female involvement across subspecies [21], while in bonobos females predominantly engage in between-group associations [25]). Some sex difference between species in response to intergroup cues may thus be expected, and should be a target of future studies. Similarly, with respect to stimuli, while we here aimed to maximize consistency with the prior study of chimpanzees, in the wild female bonobos play an important role in the initiation of group encounters and previous eye-tracking research has found similar attentional biases in bonobos’ response to female outgroup stimuli as chimpanzees’ response to male outgroup stimuli [39, 44]. Another study found attentional bias to emotional outgroup compared to ingroup stimuli in bonobos [45], interpreted as interest in potential interaction with outgroup members, suggesting the potential for a complex interaction between participant sex, stimulus sex, and emotional setting that could not be targeted here. It remains possible that female long-distance vocalizations would be a more ecologically relevant stimulus to simulate bonobo intergroup encounters.

The increase in grooming in both captive bonobos and chimpanzees alongside high alertness suggests that the association between ingroup cohesion and outgroup cues may predate the divergence of bonobos and chimpanzees, decreasing in intensity alongside reduced intergroup competition in bonobos. When considered alongside results in humans (e.g. [46–48]), this suggests the phenomenon may also predate the Pan-Homo split. While it remains possible that the association evolved independently after the two lineages diverged, the most parsimonious interpretation of the presently available data is that the association could be found in the last common ancestor of humans and Pan. Although further systematic comparisons are needed from wild groups, the current study is consistent with the hypothesis that the common ancestor of humans and Pan may have tended to increase group cohesion in response to outgroup threat, potentially as an adaptive response to intergroup competition [1, 49], and therefore provides some tentative and preliminary evidence for intergroup competition in the last common Pan-Homo ancestor. Interestingly, patterns of intergroup relations vary considerably between species of gorillas, from more competitive and territorial mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei) to more tolerant western lowland gorillas (G. gorilla) [50, 51]. Some evidence suggests the association between outgroup threat and ingroup cohesion can be found in mountain gorillas [15], and thus if the same pattern is found in western lowland gorillas it would point towards an even earlier emergence of this phenomenon in hominids. On the other hand, decreased social cohesion following intergroup cues (either real or simulated) in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) [16], bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata) [14], and lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus) [18] suggests that the pattern is not shared across haplorrhines.

It will also be important to assess the existence of this effect across different grouping structures and other taxa. Most prior work has focused on cooperative breeders with a single breeding pair, and while both bonobos and chimpanzees live in fission-fusion social dynamics with groups containing multiple reproductively active adults of both sexes, this still represents a narrow range of the diversity of animal social organization shaping species’ group-based behaviour and cognition. The existence and strength of this effect in non-human species which form multi-level societies would be especially interesting avenue for future work, as aggregations at different structural levels may have different functional importance to members. More tests with systematic variation in species’ socio-ecologies in comparative research is essential.

Despite some important limitations and constraints on ecological validity given the captive context, we overall find a pattern consistent with the social cohesion hypothesis for bonobos’ proximate response to outgroup vocalizations. This provides evidence that increased ingroup social affiliation in response to outgroup threat may be conserved in the Pan-Homo lineage, and suggests the possible presence of intergroup competition (alongside selection for group-based behaviour and cognition) in our last common ancestor.

Supporting information

S1 File. This file contains all supporting information for this manuscript including: Visualizations of effects by trial, stability and collinearity models results, singular model results, all code used in analyses and figure creation (as well as saved models), all data, both figures, and two examples each of control and outgroup stimuli used in this experiment.

(ZIP)

pone.0307975.s001.zip^{(26.5MB, zip)}

Acknowledgments

We first thank the bonobos who participated in this study. We also thank Ape Initiative, Cologne Zoo, Frankfurt Zoo, Kumamoto Sanctuary, and Twycross Zoo for their immense support in this study. We are especially grateful to Lisa Gillespie, Jennifer Guebert, Satoshi Hirata, Haley Holmes, Sabrina Linn, Etsuko Nogami, Jess Rendle, Johanna Rode-White, Alexander Sliwa, Anna Thomas, Dalma Zsalako, and the bonobo caretakers at each site for their help coordinating and running the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was financially supported by the Leading Graduate Program in Primatology and Wildlife Science of Kyoto University, and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (21J21123 to JB, 19H00629 and 22H04451 to SY) and Japan Science and Technology Agency Fusion Oriented REsearch for disruptive Science and Technology (JPMJFR221I to SY). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Choi J-K, Bowles S. The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science (New York, NY). 2007;318: 636–40. doi: 10.1126/science.1144237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Darwin C. The descent of man: and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, Albemarle Street.; 1871. [Google Scholar]
3.Hamilton WD. Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. 1975. [Google Scholar]
4.Radford AN, Majolo B, Aureli F. Within-group behavioural consequences of between-group conflict: A prospective review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016;283: 20161567. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Brooks J, Yamamoto S. The evolution of group-mindedness: comparative research on top-down and bottom-up group cooperation in bonobos and chimpanzees. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2022;47: 101205. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101205 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Brooks J, Onishi E, Clark IR, Bohn M, Yamamoto S. Uniting against a common enemy: Perceived outgroup threat elicits ingroup cohesion in chimpanzees. Slocombe KE, editor. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0246869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Bruintjes R, Lynton-Jenkins J, Jones JW, Radford AN. Out-Group Threat Promotes Within-Group Affiliation in a Cooperative Fish. The American Naturalist. 2016;187: 274–282. doi: 10.1086/684411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Morris-Drake A, Linden JF, Kern JM, Radford AN. Extended and cumulative effects of experimentally induced intergroup conflict in a cooperatively breeding mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2021;288. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Morris-Drake A, Christensen C, Kern JM, Radford AN. Experimental field evidence that out-group threats influence within-group behavior. Barrett L, editor. Behavioral Ecology. 2019;30: 1425–1435. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arz095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Preston EFR, Thompson FJ, Kyabulima S, Croft DP, Cant MA. The dynamics of social cohesion in response to simulated intergroup conflict in banded mongooses. Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11: 18662–18675. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Preston EFR, Thompson FJ, Ellis S, Kyambulima S, Croft DP, Cant MA. Network‐level consequences of outgroup threats in banded mongooses: grooming and aggression between the sexes. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2020. [cited 20 Aug 2020]. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Radford AN. Type of threat influences postconflict allopreening in a social bird. Current Biology. 2008;18: R114–R115. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Radford AN. Duration and outcome of intergroup conflict influences intragroup affiliative behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2008;275: 2787–2791. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Cooper Matthew A, Aureli F, Singh M. Between-group encounters among bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2004;56: 217–227. doi: 10.1007/s00265-004-0779-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Mirville MO, Ridley AR, Samedi JPM, Vecellio V, Ndagijimana F, Stoinski TS, et al. Intragroup Behavioral Changes Following Intergroup Conflict in Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). International Journal of Primatology. 2020; 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10764-020-00130-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Schino G, Massaro L, Visalberghi E, Aureli F. Between-group hostility affects within-group interactions in tufted capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour. 2012;83: 445–451. doi: 10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2011.11.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Samuni L, Mielke A, Preis A, Crockford C, Wittig RM. Intergroup Competition Enhances Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) In-group Cohesion. International Journal of Primatology. 2019; 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s10764-019-00112-y31593962 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Zinner D, Hindahl J, Kaumanns W. Experimental intergroup encounters in lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus). Primate Report. 2001;59: 77–92. [Google Scholar]
19.Grueter CC. No effect of inter-group conflict on within-group harmony in non-human primates. Communicative and Integrative Biology. 2013;6: 13–16. doi: 10.4161/cib.26801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Majolo B, de Bortoli Vizioli A, Lehmann J. The effect of intergroup competition on intragroup affiliation in primates. Animal Behaviour. 2016;114: 13–19. doi: 10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2016.01.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Wilson ML, Wrangham RW. Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2003;32: 363–392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.120046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.de Manuel M, Kuhlwilm M, Frandsen P, Sousa VC, Desai T, Prado-Martinez J, et al. Chimpanzee genomic diversity reveals ancient admixture with bonobos. Science. 2016;354: 477–481. doi: 10.1126/science.aag2602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Prado-Martinez J, Sudmant PH, Kidd JM, Li H, Kelley JL, Lorente-Galdos B, et al. Great ape genetic diversity and population history. Nature. 2013;499: 471–475. doi: 10.1038/nature12228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Prüfer K, Munch K, Hellmann I, Akagi K, Miller JR, Walenz B, et al. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Nature. 2012;486: 527–531. doi: 10.1038/nature11128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Furuichi T. Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2011;20: 131–142. doi: 10.1002/evan.20308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Samuni L, Langergraber KE, Surbeck MH. Characterization of Pan social systems reveals in-group/out-group distinction and out-group tolerance in bonobos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119: e2201122119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2201122119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Cheng L, Lucchesi S, Mundry R, Samuni L, Deschner T, Surbeck M. Variation in aggression rates and urinary cortisol levels indicates intergroup competition in wild bonobos. Hormones and Behavior. 2021;128: 104914. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Tokuyama N, Sakamaki T, Furuichi T. Inter‐group aggressive interaction patterns indicate male mate defense and female cooperation across bonobo groups at Wamba, Democratic Republic of the Congo. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2019;170: 535–550. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Pisor AC, Surbeck M. The evolution of intergroup tolerance in nonhuman primates and humans. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2019; evan.21793. doi: 10.1002/evan.21793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.de Waal FBM. The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus), Compared To That of Chimpanzees. Behaviour. 1988;106: 183–251. doi: 10.1163/156853988X00269 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Grawunder S, Crockford C, Clay Z, Kalan AK, Stevens JMG, Stoessel A, et al. Higher fundamental frequency in bonobos is explained by larynx morphology. Curr Biol. 2018;28: R1188–R1189. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Kutsukake N, Teramoto M, Homma S, Mori Y, Matsudaira K, Kobayashi H, et al. Individual Variation in Behavioural Reactions to Unfamiliar Conspecific Vocalisation and Hormonal Underpinnings in Male Chimpanzees. Ethology. 2012;118: 269–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.02009.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Christensen R. Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—estimation with the ordinal package. R-package version. 2011; 1–31. [Google Scholar]
34.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4. 2019. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4 [Google Scholar]
35.Powell MJD. The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Cambridge NA Report NA2009/06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 2009; 26–46.
36.Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr. Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2002;15: 899–910. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Samuni L, Preis A, Deschner T, Wittig RM, Crockford C. Cortisol and oxytocin show independent activity during chimpanzee intergroup conflict. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019;104: 165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Samuni L, Preis A, Mundry R, Deschner T, Crockford C, Wittig RM. Oxytocin reactivity during intergroup conflict in wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114: 268–273. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616812114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Brooks J, Kano F, Kawaguchi Y, Yamamoto S. Oxytocin promotes species-relevant outgroup attention in bonobos and chimpanzees. Hormones and Behavior. 2022;143: 105182. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2022.105182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Brooks J, Kano F, Yeow H, Morimura N, Yamamoto S. Testing the effect of oxytocin on social grooming in bonobos. American Journal of Primatology. 2022;84: e23444. doi: 10.1002/ajp.23444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Crockford C, Wittig RM, Langergraber K, Ziegler TE, Zuberbühler K, Deschner T. Urinary oxytocin and social bonding in related and unrelated wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013;280: 20122765. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Triki Z, Daughters K, De Dreu CKW. Oxytocin has ‘tend-and-defend’ functionality in group conflict across social vertebrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2022;377: 20210137. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Wirobski G, Range F, Graat EAM, Palme R, Deschner T, Marshall-Pescini S. Similar behavioural but different endocrine responses to conspecific interactions in hand-raised wolves and dogs. iScience. 2023; 105978. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.105978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Lewis LS, Kano F, Stevens JMG, DuBois JG, Call J, Krupenye C. Bonobos and chimpanzees preferentially attend to familiar members of the dominant sex. Animal Behaviour. 2021;177: 193–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.van Berlo E, Bionda T, Kret ME. Attention toward emotions is modulated by familiarity with the expressor: A comparison between bonobos and humans. Emotion. 2023;23: 1904–1917. doi: 10.1037/emo0000882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Bornstein G, Gneezy U, Nagel R. The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior. 2002;41: 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00012-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Puurtinen M, Mappes T. Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;276: 355–360. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.West SA, Gardner A, Shuker DM, Reynolds T, Burton-Chellow M, Sykes EM, et al. Cooperation and the Scale of Competition in Humans. Current Biology. 2006;16: 1103–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Yamamoto S. The evolution of cooperation in dyads and in groups: two-by-two research comparing chimpanzees and bonobos in the wild and in the laboratory. In: Hopper L, Ross SR, editors. Chimpanzees in Context. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2021. [Google Scholar]
50.Forcina G, Vallet D, Le Gouar PJ, Bernardo-Madrid R, Illera G, Molina-Vacas G, et al. From groups to communities in western lowland gorillas. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2019;286: 20182019. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Morrison RE, Hirwa JP, Mucyo JPS, Stoinski TS, Vecellio V, Eckardt W. Inter-group relationships influence territorial defence in mountain gorillas. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2020;89: 2852–2862. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307975.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

11 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-33770Outgroup cues promote ingroup cohesion in bonobos despite limited wild intergroup competitionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Brooks,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS:

Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Please expand the acronym “FOREST” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have received two reviews of your manuscript with several recommendations that lead me to request major revisions in order for your manuscript to be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. Please ensure that you address and/or respond to each recommendation, in particular, I agree the reviewers for the need to tone down the interpretation of the results.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General:

The analyses are well done and the methods are clear, but I cannot recommend this paper for publication without a substantial re-write that tones down claims of increased in group cohesion. The results show that bonobos sat up more during the playback but “all significant effects (except the proportion of rest sitting upright) interacted with trial, suggesting the effect was not uniform or universal.” It takes weak results and makes very bold claims. I would be more interested in reading a realistic account of how the bonobos responded to the playback and that this doesn’t meet the authors’ expectations. I wonder whether the methods accurately reflected bonobo intergroup encounters as no female vocal stimuli were used, and how appropriate it is to simulate intergroup encounters in captive individuals who have lived experience of joining new individuals in an artificial setting. I would like to encourage the authors to resubmit this paper after restructuring it to more accurately represent the findings.

Title: The title is misleading as the results do not show substantial increases in group cohesion during or after playback. It is more appropriate to say that “Captive bonobos are attentive to outgroup cues but with limited effect on ingroup cohesion”

Abstract: The start is a bit vague – why is the evolutionary history unclear? Which species does this occur in? why does adding bonobos make it clearer?

Are outgroup encounters necessarily a “threat”? It might be more appropriate to talk about “outgroup competition” or how the “likelihood of encountering an outgroup” increases group cohesion. They might be high-stress, high-arousal encounters without being considered a threat. How likely are these particular individuals to consider unknown individuals as a threat given their rearing history?

Line 48: What does “groups” mean here for these species? There’s a potential difference for perceived threats between a breeding pair or a large group of multiple adult individuals that includes non-kin and diverse pairings

Paragraph starting line 60: In this section, while you introduce the idea that humans do intergroup conflict, I recommend also indicating that our intergroup relationships may be more bonobo-like than chimp-like. Chimpanzee intergroup relationships are always hostile, but human and bonobo intergroup relationships may be hostile but can also be friendly (and often sit along a spectrum between these extremes). This would more accurately represent human group relationships and strengthens the justification for bringing in a bonobo comparison.

Line 102: I was a bit confused in the wording of the hypothesis and predications, and would suggest re-working this section to make the predictions clearer to the reader e.g. “This hypothesis predicts: (a) increased affiliation, including behaviours like play and groomings; (b) decreased aggression; (c)… Whereas the null hypothesis is…” You can then also then follow this up in the discussion and identify which of these predictions were met and how strong the effect was and give a more balanced view of your evidence for the social cohesion hypothesis.

Methods

Line 111: Is there a supplemental information showing the demographics of each group? And how large are their enclosures, as this may be important to interpreting proximity data?

Line 143: was any training and/or interobserver reliability conducted with the observers? And were the observers aware of or naïve to the hypothesis being tested? Given the decision to do live coding rather than video coding, we need some more information on the observers

Line 163: are the 12 recordings from 12 different adult male bonobos? And then on line 170, are the 4 distinct recordings from the same or four different individuals? I imagine that it’s from four different bonobos to simulate a group encounter but it’s currently a bit unclear.

Why did you choose to only use male bonobo calls rather than a mix of male and female calls? Given that females often lead in intergroup encounters, maybe including female calls in the playback would have produced a different effect. This may have been a choice to provide direct comparison to the chimps, but I worry it might be at the cost of ecological validity.

Analysis section is very clearly explained!

Discussion

I am not convinced that this evidence supports the social cohesion hypothesis and am uncomfortable with that being the conclusion. The big effect was that they sat up more, but there was limited evidence that they behaved in a more cohesive way. The results demonstrate that bonobos are more attentive when there is a playback than when there is no playback, and perhaps that they experience elevated stress. Drawing further theoretical interpretations is problematic. Re-iterating the predictions at the start of the discussion and whether or not each was met and with what effect, would allow you to demonstrate that there was some evidence towards the hypothesis without accepting the hypothesis in its entirety.

Reviewer #2: This paper tests the hypothesis that perceived outgroup threat promotes ingroup cohesion in bonobos. Bonobos are an ideal model species for testing this hypothesis due to their relaxed intergroup dynamics compared to chimpanzees. The authors examine changes in the frequency of social interactions (grooming, playing, aggression) and stress-related behavior (self-directed behavior and sitting upright) after the playback of vocalizations from unfamiliar outgroup conspecifics and control crow vocalizations. The topic is interesting and the paper is a good fit for PLOS ONE. However, I have some major concerns that must be addressed before I could recommend this paper for publication.

The authors seem to have mixed up the proximate and ultimate explanations for sociality in their hypotheses and predictions. The rationale behind the “intergroup competition hypothesis” is that social cohesion is an adaptive response to outgroup threat because individuals have a bigger chance to outcompete rival groups as a cohesive unit, and winning intergroup competition provide fitness benefits. And so in species where outgroup threat is strong and the immediate costs of intergroup competition is high (e.g., have lethal consequences), we would expect increased social cohesion and cooperation within group, especially in the context of intergroup interactions. But for species that experience low levels of out-group threat, like the bonobos, we would expect no effect of outgroup threat on sociality in all conditions across all time points. Therefore, to investigate the effect of hearing outgroup vocalizations on sociality and vigilance behaviors, the authors should compare occurrences of a given behavior before and after playback for both control and outgroup conditions. Yet, the authors only reported results during and after playback, making it hard to assess whether behavioral patterns change relative to baseline in the two conditions. Rather than being a separate hypothesis, the “social cohesion hypothesis” seems to be predictions derived from the “intergroup competition hypothesis”. Also, can the authors elaborate on the “conserved association hypothesis”? In the absence of strong outgroup threat and competition, what may be the selection pressure for the evolution of group cohesion and cooperation in bonobos?

While proximity and aggression are relevant measures of group cohesion, grooming and play are more measures of affiliation. Accordingly, I disagree with the authors on the link between outgroup threat and ingroup cohesion in bonobos. Rather, the results on the effect of condition on grooming and vigilance seem to indicate individual stress response to outgroup vocalizations.

I appreciate that the authors examine the proximate consequences of outgroup threat across two different time points, with the "during phase" representing the immediate response to the vocalizations and the "post phase" representing the delayed response. But I disagree with the authors that the consequence of outgroup threat on grooming is “short-lived”. Based on Figure S1, there seems to be a lasting effect of hearing outgroup vocalizations on grooming, as the probability to groom increases with increasing time lapse after hearing outgroup but not control vocalizations.

Related to the above comment, I am concerned whether the control conditions are truly controls on days which outgroup trials precede control trials. I understand that there may be logistics reasons for why control and outgroup trials are conducted on the same day. One way to address this issue is to compare behavioral occurrences before and after playback in each trial.

I also do not understand why the authors are interested in the interaction between trial and condition. Do the authors predict that the potential effect of habituation as trials progress would be different for control and outgroup conditions? If so, why? It seems more intuitive to me to test the main effect of condition on behaviors while accounting for any potential habituation effect by including trial number as an independent control predictor (rather than an interaction term) in all of the models. For the models that examine social behaviors, the authors should also account for the opportunity to interact with another individual by including the number of individuals in the group.

Minor comments:

Line 87: Please define outgroup and control conditions.

Line 156: You may need to include a random effect of day for all the models to account for non-independence of data points of the same experimental day.

Line 160-161: For sites where multiple groups were tested, did the groups respond to the playback vocally? I wonder if behavioral changes post playback may be influenced by the vocal response of the other group.

Line 163: Can you provide more information about the context in which these recordings were taken (e.g., during travelling, feeding, fusion or aggressive events)? Also, are these calls from 12 different male bonobos? If not, you may have to account for any potential random preferences for a specific caller in your models (by including caller ID as random effect).

Line 176: What are these randomly selected sounds? Are they bonobo or crow vocalisations or something completely different and novel?

Line 201-204: Have you inspected whether the fixed effects you included as random slopes are actually identifiable (i.e., vary within levels of the random effect)? You should exclude random slopes that are unidentifiable before dropping identifiable random slopes because excluding identifiable random slopes can lead to Type 1 error (see recommendation from Bates D, Kliegl R, Vasishth S & Baayen H. Parsimonious Mixed Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967v1).

Line 222: Please specify the terms included in each null model.

Line 298: I am not sure if all readers are familiar with the term “phylogenetic inertia”. Please provide a definition for that.

Figure 1 and 2: For clarity, can you bin the data points into circles of different sizes, where the size of circles represents the number of dyads at different levels of the response for each proximity category and condition?

Figure 2: Please include patterns of sexual behavior in this figure.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 21;19(8):e0307975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307975.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 Jun 2024

Reviewer #1: General:

Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We have rephrased and reformatted the main conclusions to take a more moderate tone throughout the text. We agree that the results on anything beyond alertness were mild, but also note that with predefined statistical measures following the prior chimpanzee study we see similar patterns of significant effects, making it more difficult to interpret and requiring more caution than we showed in the first submitted draft. We have rewritten several sections to better reflect the reality of the results found, especially the discussion (and title). We also firmly agree that perhaps in the case of bonobos female vocalizations may have a different or more pronounced effect, and that captive groups would likely have radically different group-related behavioural responses than wild counterparts, but emphasize our goal was to follow the chimpanzee study as closely as possible and as such consider this to be a necessary first step (but add much-needed discussion around this point).

We have changed the title to reflect the results more accurately (line 1).

Abstract: The start is a bit vague – why is the evolutionary history unclear? Which species does this occur in? why does adding bonobos make it clearer?

We have given more detail to the reasoning and importance of bonobos as a study species for this question in the abstract (lines 19-20).

This is an interesting point. The intergroup relations of any real species are inevitably nuanced and the term “threat” may not be universally appropriate here, but at the same time “outgroup threat” itself has been the target of much of the prior literature (especially that in humans and in theoretical studies) and is the phenomenon generally being targeted. We have rephrased at several points to reflect more nuance, especially distinguishing more specific practical information (referring to stimuli and raw effects by perception of outgroup cues only instead of perception of outgroup threat) from more theoretical sentences aiming at the target phenomenon beyond this specific study (where much existing discussion highlights outgroup threat itself). We hope these changes both reliably reflect previous studies and theory but do not overgeneralize this context to any/all intergroup relations.

This is also an interesting point and one we come back to in the discussion (lines 434-442). In the introduction we rephrase to highlight simply that group structures vary significantly and may not always be representing the same thing (lines 50-56), and in the discussion come back and highlight the importance of this diversity as a particular area of study, especially as it relates to species which form multi-level societies (lines 434-442).

This is important, we have rephrased (lines 67-69).

According to your and reviewer 2’s suggestions, we have rewritten this section entirely aiming to clarify the structure of the hypotheses and predictions as well as their theoretical motivation (lines 86-111). We also take your advice to use letters to indicate subpredictions and then follow this structure in reviewing the those that were met in the results at the beginning of the discussion section (lines 309-320).

Methods

Line 111: Is there a supplemental information showing the demographics of each group? And how large are their enclosures, as this may be important to interpreting proximity data?

We include a sheet title “IndividualInfo.xlsx” in the data subfolder of our supplementary file which indicates the name, sex, and age of participants at all sites/groups. While we cannot list the exact sizes of all enclosures, we add a statement that they were comparable (or often larger) than the chimpanzee enclosures in the prior study, suggesting ceiling effects cannot explain the lack of effect in bonobos (lines 143-144).

We have added more detail about observer training (lines 164-167). Given the varied enclosures we found video-recording of all settings to be impossible, but aimed to use only measures that were relatively direct to observe and which are employed in field observation where similar challenges apply. At each site observers trained together until reaching a high level of consistency, but given practical constraints this was not systematically assessed, and observers were aware of hypotheses. We specify these limitations more explicitly.

Yes, the 12 recordings are from 12 different adult males. The 4 distinct recordings are from four different individuals in all cases. We specify this more clearly (lines 189-198).

It was indeed a difficult choice for us to decide whether to use male or female vocalizations, or some combination of both. We considered that for bonobo groups, females would be arguably more central to intergroup relations, but also that aggression during intergroup encounters still often comes from males and thus unfamiliar males may be perceived as more threatening. Further, we considered consistency with the prior chimpanzee study to be the highest priority, and as such that the most straightforward approach was keeping sex consistent. That said, we recognize and agree that there seems to be some trade-off between consistency and ecological validity here. We believe that for this initial study of bonobos, male vocalizations provided the most direct test of the core hypotheses, but now discuss this trade-off in the discussion (lines 402-412).

Analysis section is very clearly explained!

Thank you!

Discussion

This is a fair point, and we concur the submitted draft overstated the findings. The results were quite moderate. As you state, we find some but not complete evidence for the hypothesis, and must convey the evidence accurately and discuss what it suggests for the broader field without overstating its implications. As you recognize, we similarly could not feel comfortable rejecting the social cohesion hypothesis entirely and endorsing the recent intergroup competition hypothesis, as with predefined statistical approaches we did see a very similar pattern emerge as seen in the chimpanzee study. The data requires a more subtle interpretation. We follow your suggestion to first restate the alternate predictions against the data to reflect this (related to the restructuring of the hypotheses as well to aid this discussion). We also tone down our overall conclusion, are careful to give more balanced phrasing to any statements, and remove some sentences/paragraphs entirely which overstated the results. We still hold that the most parsimonious explanation for the pattern observed is a weak, but not absent, effect in bonobos, potentially conserved from a common ancestor but no longer under selective pressure, but we aim to discuss this without giving readers a misconception that this is a proven fact. We are therefore more careful not to frame this as a firm conclusion but as the current hypothesis for which the data is most consistent, with the important caveats we raise throughout the discussion, and as tentative evidence but not proof of any hypothesis (throughout the manuscript, but especially lines 309-332, 413-433, and 443-448).

Thank you for your detailed review of our manuscript and suggestions for its improvements. We found the discussion of hypotheses especially helpful, as this was not well-stated in our earlier version, and we believe has been significantly improved thanks to your review.

As you suggest, the social cohesion hypothesis details the proximate predictions, but derives from broader ultimate hypotheses. Specifically, there are two alternate ultimate hypotheses (conserved association and intergroup competition) for the existence of this effect in bonobos, which yield different proximate hypotheses (social cohesion and null, respectively). We now explicitly distinguish these levels of analysis and the hypotheses and predictions that relate to them, as well as list more clearly the behavioural effects and categories for the predictions of each as suggested by reviewer 1 (lines 82-111). We hope this clears up any confusion and frames our study in a more theoretical coherent manner where the logic was implicit or messy.

Related to your point about the experimental design, there are two main reasons we did not directly compare behaviour before and after playback in each trial. The first of which is that we wanted to keep analyses identical to the chimpanzee study, and the second of which is, relatedly, that we do not consider the before and during phases to be as reflective of the hypothesis to be tested as such (here or in the chimpanzee study). More specifically, there was in some groups feedings that occurred prior to the “pre” phase. In these groups we ensured the same feeding occurred in all trials and in both the morning and afternoon sessions, and that there was no intervention or changes to their condition at any point during the observation (including the 30 minute pre phase), but we note that the pre phase therefore included gradual depletion of their foods and was a different social context than the during phase (beyond the stimulus presentations). Our primary study design was comparing outgroup to control condition, so although we observed prior to the during phase because we wanted to be sure there had not been unusual events, the specific behavioural data here is no

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerResponse.docx

pone.0307975.s002.docx^{(28.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307975.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

16 Jul 2024

Increased alertness and moderate ingroup cohesion in bonobos’ response to outgroup cues

PONE-D-23-33770R1

Dear Dr. Brooks,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your careful revision of the manuscript in line with the suggestions and comments from the two reviewers. One of the reviewers kindly agreed to re-review the re-submission, please see their comments below. I am happy to accept the submission at this point.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: This revised submission is substantially improved from the original manuscript, mainly in clarifying the hypotheses and toning down the conclusion. I am excited to see this work published in PLOS ONE.

Even though the authors did not consider the suggested changes on the analyses, I understand that it is to provide direct comparison to their chimpanzee study and acknowledge the value in that. I appreciate all the clarifications on the experimental design. I also think the point about potential effect of food provision in the pre phase on bonobo behavior is very valid and should be mentioned in the Discussion as a potential confound. I also appreciate the toning down of the conclusion and result interpretations, especially with rephrasing outgroup vocalizations as an outgroup cue rather than outgroup threat as it is unclear whether the bonobos perceive these calls as a threat based on their behavioral response. Finally, it is good to see that the authors acknowledged the limitation of only using male bonobo vocalizations as outgroup cues in this study. I think it is an important point given the key role females play in bonobo intergroup encounters in the wild. And with sex-related attention biases shown in eye-tracking studies, it may be that male and female bonobos respond differently to outgroup cues – a potential avenue for future research.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307975.r004

Acceptance letter

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

25 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-33770R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Brooks,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

(ZIP)

pone.0307975.s001.zip^{(26.5MB, zip)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerResponse.docx

pone.0307975.s002.docx^{(28.6KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0307975.ref001] 1.Choi J-K, Bowles S. The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science (New York, NY). 2007;318: 636–40. doi: 10.1126/science.1144237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref002] 2.Darwin C. The descent of man: and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, Albemarle Street.; 1871. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref003] 3.Hamilton WD. Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. 1975. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref004] 4.Radford AN, Majolo B, Aureli F. Within-group behavioural consequences of between-group conflict: A prospective review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2016;283: 20161567. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref005] 5.Brooks J, Yamamoto S. The evolution of group-mindedness: comparative research on top-down and bottom-up group cooperation in bonobos and chimpanzees. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2022;47: 101205. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101205 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref006] 6.Brooks J, Onishi E, Clark IR, Bohn M, Yamamoto S. Uniting against a common enemy: Perceived outgroup threat elicits ingroup cohesion in chimpanzees. Slocombe KE, editor. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0246869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref007] 7.Bruintjes R, Lynton-Jenkins J, Jones JW, Radford AN. Out-Group Threat Promotes Within-Group Affiliation in a Cooperative Fish. The American Naturalist. 2016;187: 274–282. doi: 10.1086/684411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref008] 8.Morris-Drake A, Linden JF, Kern JM, Radford AN. Extended and cumulative effects of experimentally induced intergroup conflict in a cooperatively breeding mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2021;288. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref009] 9.Morris-Drake A, Christensen C, Kern JM, Radford AN. Experimental field evidence that out-group threats influence within-group behavior. Barrett L, editor. Behavioral Ecology. 2019;30: 1425–1435. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arz095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref010] 10.Preston EFR, Thompson FJ, Kyabulima S, Croft DP, Cant MA. The dynamics of social cohesion in response to simulated intergroup conflict in banded mongooses. Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11: 18662–18675. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref011] 11.Preston EFR, Thompson FJ, Ellis S, Kyambulima S, Croft DP, Cant MA. Network‐level consequences of outgroup threats in banded mongooses: grooming and aggression between the sexes. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2020. [cited 20 Aug 2020]. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref012] 12.Radford AN. Type of threat influences postconflict allopreening in a social bird. Current Biology. 2008;18: R114–R115. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref013] 13.Radford AN. Duration and outcome of intergroup conflict influences intragroup affiliative behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2008;275: 2787–2791. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref014] 14.Cooper Matthew A, Aureli F, Singh M. Between-group encounters among bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2004;56: 217–227. doi: 10.1007/s00265-004-0779-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref015] 15.Mirville MO, Ridley AR, Samedi JPM, Vecellio V, Ndagijimana F, Stoinski TS, et al. Intragroup Behavioral Changes Following Intergroup Conflict in Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). International Journal of Primatology. 2020; 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10764-020-00130-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref016] 16.Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Schino G, Massaro L, Visalberghi E, Aureli F. Between-group hostility affects within-group interactions in tufted capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour. 2012;83: 445–451. doi: 10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2011.11.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref017] 17.Samuni L, Mielke A, Preis A, Crockford C, Wittig RM. Intergroup Competition Enhances Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) In-group Cohesion. International Journal of Primatology. 2019; 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s10764-019-00112-y31593962 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref018] 18.Zinner D, Hindahl J, Kaumanns W. Experimental intergroup encounters in lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus). Primate Report. 2001;59: 77–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref019] 19.Grueter CC. No effect of inter-group conflict on within-group harmony in non-human primates. Communicative and Integrative Biology. 2013;6: 13–16. doi: 10.4161/cib.26801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref020] 20.Majolo B, de Bortoli Vizioli A, Lehmann J. The effect of intergroup competition on intragroup affiliation in primates. Animal Behaviour. 2016;114: 13–19. doi: 10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2016.01.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref021] 21.Wilson ML, Wrangham RW. Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2003;32: 363–392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.120046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref022] 22.de Manuel M, Kuhlwilm M, Frandsen P, Sousa VC, Desai T, Prado-Martinez J, et al. Chimpanzee genomic diversity reveals ancient admixture with bonobos. Science. 2016;354: 477–481. doi: 10.1126/science.aag2602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref023] 23.Prado-Martinez J, Sudmant PH, Kidd JM, Li H, Kelley JL, Lorente-Galdos B, et al. Great ape genetic diversity and population history. Nature. 2013;499: 471–475. doi: 10.1038/nature12228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref024] 24.Prüfer K, Munch K, Hellmann I, Akagi K, Miller JR, Walenz B, et al. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Nature. 2012;486: 527–531. doi: 10.1038/nature11128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref025] 25.Furuichi T. Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2011;20: 131–142. doi: 10.1002/evan.20308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref026] 26.Samuni L, Langergraber KE, Surbeck MH. Characterization of Pan social systems reveals in-group/out-group distinction and out-group tolerance in bonobos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119: e2201122119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2201122119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref027] 27.Cheng L, Lucchesi S, Mundry R, Samuni L, Deschner T, Surbeck M. Variation in aggression rates and urinary cortisol levels indicates intergroup competition in wild bonobos. Hormones and Behavior. 2021;128: 104914. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref028] 28.Tokuyama N, Sakamaki T, Furuichi T. Inter‐group aggressive interaction patterns indicate male mate defense and female cooperation across bonobo groups at Wamba, Democratic Republic of the Congo. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2019;170: 535–550. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref029] 29.Pisor AC, Surbeck M. The evolution of intergroup tolerance in nonhuman primates and humans. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2019; evan.21793. doi: 10.1002/evan.21793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref030] 30.de Waal FBM. The Communicative Repertoire of Captive Bonobos (Pan Paniscus), Compared To That of Chimpanzees. Behaviour. 1988;106: 183–251. doi: 10.1163/156853988X00269 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref031] 31.Grawunder S, Crockford C, Clay Z, Kalan AK, Stevens JMG, Stoessel A, et al. Higher fundamental frequency in bonobos is explained by larynx morphology. Curr Biol. 2018;28: R1188–R1189. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref032] 32.Kutsukake N, Teramoto M, Homma S, Mori Y, Matsudaira K, Kobayashi H, et al. Individual Variation in Behavioural Reactions to Unfamiliar Conspecific Vocalisation and Hormonal Underpinnings in Male Chimpanzees. Ethology. 2012;118: 269–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.02009.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref033] 33.Christensen R. Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models—estimation with the ordinal package. R-package version. 2011; 1–31. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref034] 34.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4. 2019. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref035] 35.Powell MJD. The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Cambridge NA Report NA2009/06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 2009; 26–46.

[pone.0307975.ref036] 36.Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr. Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2002;15: 899–910. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref037] 37.Samuni L, Preis A, Deschner T, Wittig RM, Crockford C. Cortisol and oxytocin show independent activity during chimpanzee intergroup conflict. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019;104: 165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref038] 38.Samuni L, Preis A, Mundry R, Deschner T, Crockford C, Wittig RM. Oxytocin reactivity during intergroup conflict in wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114: 268–273. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616812114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref039] 39.Brooks J, Kano F, Kawaguchi Y, Yamamoto S. Oxytocin promotes species-relevant outgroup attention in bonobos and chimpanzees. Hormones and Behavior. 2022;143: 105182. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2022.105182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref040] 40.Brooks J, Kano F, Yeow H, Morimura N, Yamamoto S. Testing the effect of oxytocin on social grooming in bonobos. American Journal of Primatology. 2022;84: e23444. doi: 10.1002/ajp.23444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref041] 41.Crockford C, Wittig RM, Langergraber K, Ziegler TE, Zuberbühler K, Deschner T. Urinary oxytocin and social bonding in related and unrelated wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013;280: 20122765. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref042] 42.Triki Z, Daughters K, De Dreu CKW. Oxytocin has ‘tend-and-defend’ functionality in group conflict across social vertebrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2022;377: 20210137. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref043] 43.Wirobski G, Range F, Graat EAM, Palme R, Deschner T, Marshall-Pescini S. Similar behavioural but different endocrine responses to conspecific interactions in hand-raised wolves and dogs. iScience. 2023; 105978. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.105978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref044] 44.Lewis LS, Kano F, Stevens JMG, DuBois JG, Call J, Krupenye C. Bonobos and chimpanzees preferentially attend to familiar members of the dominant sex. Animal Behaviour. 2021;177: 193–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref045] 45.van Berlo E, Bionda T, Kret ME. Attention toward emotions is modulated by familiarity with the expressor: A comparison between bonobos and humans. Emotion. 2023;23: 1904–1917. doi: 10.1037/emo0000882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref046] 46.Bornstein G, Gneezy U, Nagel R. The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior. 2002;41: 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00012-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref047] 47.Puurtinen M, Mappes T. Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;276: 355–360. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref048] 48.West SA, Gardner A, Shuker DM, Reynolds T, Burton-Chellow M, Sykes EM, et al. Cooperation and the Scale of Competition in Humans. Current Biology. 2006;16: 1103–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref049] 49.Yamamoto S. The evolution of cooperation in dyads and in groups: two-by-two research comparing chimpanzees and bonobos in the wild and in the laboratory. In: Hopper L, Ross SR, editors. Chimpanzees in Context. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref050] 50.Forcina G, Vallet D, Le Gouar PJ, Bernardo-Madrid R, Illera G, Molina-Vacas G, et al. From groups to communities in western lowland gorillas. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2019;286: 20182019. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0307975.ref051] 51.Morrison RE, Hirwa JP, Mucyo JPS, Stoinski TS, Vecellio V, Eckardt W. Inter-group relationships influence territorial defence in mountain gorillas. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2020;89: 2852–2862. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Increased alertness and moderate ingroup cohesion in bonobos’ response to outgroup cues

James Brooks

Karlijn van Heijst

Amanda Epping

Seok Hwan Lee

Aslihan Niksarli

Amy Pope

Zanna Clay

Mariska E Kret

Jared Taglialatela

Shinya Yamamoto

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Ethical statement

2.3 Data collection

2.4 Experimental protocol

2.5 Stimuli

2.6 Analysis

3. Results

Fig 1.

Fig 2. Behaviors in the playback and post phases.

4. Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Roles

Acceptance letter

Rachael Miller (Harrison)

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases