ArticlePloS one2023
Multi-group analysis of grooming network position in a highly social primate.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ageing processes in the bonobo gut microbiome mirror human patterns.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2026Article
- Chimpanzees are not more aggressive than bonobos but target sexes differently.Science advances · 2026Article
- The physics of sociality: Investigating patterns of social resource distribution among theiScience · 2025Article
- The effects of early life rearing experiences and age on sociality in captive olive baboons (Papio anubis).Primates; journal of primatology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive atlas of the bonobo gut bacteriome and its associated host and exposome factors.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Investigating Changes in Social Networks Following Conflict in Zoo-Housed Bonobos (Pan paniscus).American journal of primatology · 2025Article
- Group-level signatures in bonobo sociality.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual variation in complex social behavioral traits, like primate grooming, can be influenced by the characteristics of the individual and those of its social group. To better grasp this complexity, social network analysis can be used to quantify direct and indirect grooming relationships. However, multi-group social network studies remain rare, despite their importance to disentangle individual from group-level trait effects on grooming strategies. We applied social network analysis to grooming data of 22 groups of zoo-housed bonobos and investigated the impact of three individual (sex, age, and rearing-history) and two group-level traits (group size and sex ratio) on five social network measures (out-strength, in-strength, disparity, affinity, and eigenvector centrality). Our results showed age-effects on all investigated measures: for females, all measures except for affinity showed quadratic relationships with age, while in males, the effects of age were more variable depending on the network measure. Bonobos with atypical rearing histories showed lower out-strength and eigenvector centrality, while in-strength was only impacted by rearing history in males. Group size showed a negative association with disparity and eigenvector centrality, while sex ratio did not influence any of the investigated measures. Standardization for group size did not impact the effects of sex and age, indicating the robustness of these findings. Our study provides comprehensive insights into the complexity of grooming behavior in zoo-housed bonobos, and underlines the importance of multi-group analyses for the generalizability of social network analysis results for species as a whole.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.