Let's not use it! A dynamic no-use zone between the home ranges of two spider monkey groups.

It is common that neighboring groups of the same species use some of the same areas, resulting in home-range overlap. Areas between the home ranges of neighboring groups not used by either group (no-use zone or NUZ) are rarely reported. Here, we report the existence of a NUZ between the home ranges of two Geoffroy's spider monkey groups, and examine its spatial changes over time and the ecological and behavioral underpinnings of such phenomenon. Although its size and location changed between 2017 and 2022, the NUZ was always present. We did not find any differences in the vegetation structure and composition between the NUZ and the ranging areas and in the monkeys' activity patterns between areas adjacent to the NUZ and the other parts of the ranging areas. The number of monkey vocalizations was lower and subgroup size was smaller (although the number of males did not differ) in areas adjacent to the NUZ than in the other parts of the ranging areas. Both changes possibly reflect the tendency to conceal their presence to the neighboring group. Our findings contribute to the understanding of primate space use and highlight the need to focus on the areas delimiting home ranges.

Not just females: the socio-ecology of social interactions between spider monkey males.

Male-male relationships are mostly characterized by competition. However, males also cooperate with one another if socio-ecological conditions are suitable. Due to their male philopatry, the need for cooperation in home range defence and high degree of fission-fusion dynamics, spider monkeys provide an opportunity to investigate how male-male interactions are associated with socio-ecological factors, such as the presence of potentially receptive females, the degree of food availability and the likelihood of home range defence. We tested predictions about changes in social interactions between wild spider monkey males in relation to these factors. First, males did not change their interaction patterns when potentially receptive females were in the subgroup compared to when they were absent. Second, males tended to be less tolerant of one another when feeding, but spent more time grooming, in contact and proximity with one another when food availability was lower than when it was higher. Third, males exchanged fewer embraces, spent less time grooming, in proximity and in contact with one another, and spent more time vigilant at the home range boundary area than at other locations. Our findings contribute to the understanding of social flexibility and the importance of considering males in socio-ecological models of any group-living species.