Table 2.

Operational definitions of the increasing levels of complexity in cooperative range defence as observed in our study population. Definitions are based on those developed for cooperative hunting in chimpanzees [44] and carnivores [45], and number of observations stem from a targeted study on individual participation in communal range defence over the January 2012–February 2014 period.

definition	description	nobservations (male/female)
defect
no participation	the individual does not direct any aggressive behaviour at any member/subgroup of the opposing group throughout the entire encounter	988 (301/687)
cooperate
similarity	the individual directs aggressive behaviour(s) at any member/subgroup of the opposing group during the encounter. There is, however, no spatio-temporal relation between the actor's actions and those of its group members	40 (29/11)
dyadic synchrony	two group members direct aggressive behaviours at any member/subgroup of the opposing group, and relate in time to each other's actions	56 (25/31)
polyadic synchrony	more than two group members direct aggressive behaviours at any member/subgroup of the opposing group, and relate in time to each other's actions	110 (28/82)
dyadic coordination	two group members concentrate aggressive behaviours at the same member/subgroup of the opposing group, and relate in space and time to each other's actions	8 (2/6)
polyadic coordination	more than two group members concentrate aggressive behaviours at the same member/subgroup of the opposing group, and relate in space and time to each other's actions	69 (18/51)