This website was completed by John Doehring in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Biology 323, Animal Behavior, at Davidson College in the Spring Semester 2007.

Golden Lion Tamarin

(Leontopithecus rosalia)

Social Spacing

The social focus of the golden lion tamarin is the group which usually consists of around three to seven members, including the breeding adults and offspring (Massicot, 2006).  Adults allow offspring to linger around because they serve as helpers during the breeding season and assist as teachers of the young.  However, emigration between golden lion tamarin groups has been observed frequently and thus group members are not always related (Massicot, 2006).  Once juveniles reach a certain age they leave their natal group area to found their own territory and group.  Unlike most primates, females are often the first to leave.  This is most likely related to patterns in female-female relationships and infant carrying. (Social Relationships link)

Golden lion tamarins spend the majority of their day on the move, rising after sunset to begin foraging which will last until the early afternoon (about sixty percent of their daily activity).  The remainder of the day is spent locating a new sleeping site for the group. Golden lion tamarins sleep in tree holes called epiphytes around 10-30 m above the ground to avoid predators (Cawthon, 2005).  They are exclusively diurnal as the risk of predation is too high during the night.  Predation has a tremendous influence on the social system of golden lion tamarins.  Predators of the golden lion tamarin include various species of small and large cats, birds of prey, and snakes.  One researcher maintains that predation is perhaps the most important selection pressure influencing the social behavior and group structure of all tamarin species (Miller, 2002).  Because of this golden lion tamarins have adapted accommodating foraging strategies.  For instance, they rarely use the same paths when traveling towards areas of fruit abundance.  Golden lion tamarins also utilize vigilance and vocalizations as early detection mechanisms to avoid contact with predators.  Vigilant individuals (sentinels) will watch while other group members forage.  Group members share vigilant responsibilities and increased vigilance is instigated by specialized vocalizations.  Many researches once believed that sentinels experienced lower foraging success but this theory has recently been nullified (Miller, 2002).

As is common among tamarin species, golden lion tamarins will sometimes form mixed-species groups while foraging.  These aggregations serve primarily to reduce predator vulnerability (selfish herd strategy, which states that increased group numbers renders a single individual more inconspicuous, and increased vigilance numbers).  They may also serve to increase foraging efficiency (Campbell, 2007).  Research has also demonstrated an important implication of the golden lion tamarin’s vocalization.  In a study testing responses to inter-species specific threat and alarm vocalizations, Leontopithecus was found to respond affirmatively to essentially every type.  With regards to predation, the golden lion tamarin’s inability to recognize alarm and threat calls from members of its
own species may have been evolutionarily favored because of the resultant benefits from mixed-species foraging.  The relatively higher vulnerability of the species in general supports this conclusion (Taub, 1986).

Territoriality

Golden lion tamarins exhibit territorial behaviors, but most accurately occupy a home range.  “Territories” are essentially mobile, transient areas in which a group moves.  They primarily function to separate groups from each other rather than to protect food resources (because of the relative abundance of fruit and insects).  Through vocalizations and scent markings, tamarin groups let each other know where they are and warn each other from entering their territories (Massicot, 2006).  This prevents frequent group encounters.  Group encounters do occur but they are ritualized, non-aggressive displays of territoriality and physical fighting is not observed (Massicot, 2006).  Variances in population densities between locations affect the territorial behavior of the groups as well.  For example, with a higher population density in Poco das Antas, group members must spend more time on the peripheral edges of the home range and territory to protect it from other groups.  In Uniao, with a lower population density, home ranges are larger, defended less, and group members spend more time in the center where resources are the most abundant (Massicot, 2006).

Any questions regarding the content or design of this website should be sent to John Doehring or to Dr. Verna Case, Chair of the Biology Department at Davidson College.