Infant care and production in tamarins
Infant care and production in Tamarins: An Introduction
Parenting patterns vary extensively both amongst human and primates. Cooperative care is rather unusual in the primates, however; it is found mainly in tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), the small monkeys. This report delves into infant care and production in tamarins, in a social system, explaining the methods they maintain their relationships in a cooperative care.
When offered an option for caretaking of mother or the father, infants generally prefer the father, who offer more care. Hence, in biparental and cooperative breeding groups, the infants do not create a major fondness to the mother or treat her as a secured base. Rather, the infants look for the individual that had offered the infants with the most care.
The callitrichid primates consist of nearly twenty species identified as marmosets and tamarins (Wildman et al., 2009). These primates are small and live on trees and have family groups. Callitrichids normally produce twins. In captivity, they seem able to produce a couple of litters each year. The young get mature at approximately 12-18 months of age; though often lives within their parents’ domain that provides care for the next generation of offspring.
Tamarins, similar to marmosets, are day-time active and enjoy social groups that comprise of only a single breeding pair (Burrell & Altman, 2006). The mainstream research so far has motivated on cognition, reproduction, and social behavior of these species as it relates to reproduction (Almond et al., 2008; Snowdon et al., 2010; Ziegler & Snowdon, 2000; Ziegler et al., 2000). Various types of deadly have also been noted in them (Lemere et al., 2008).
Tamarins employ visual, choral, and various chemical systems to speak to one another of their groups. The range of visual signs are restricted in contrast to the other communication types in tamarins, however, consists both postural and facial signs that work as pointers to nearby individuals. However, the visual signals are not seen as capable method of interaction amongst tamarins that reside in thick forest, nevertheless they do various physical displays in the social framework. Normally, the most frequent visual signals are made during fights, social relationships, and reproductive incidents. Nevertheless, the vocal signals are the most frequently visual signs especially for long-distance communication amongst tamarins.
Tamarins lived in groups of 2 to 12 individuals, with a single breeding pair for each group. The whole family takes care of the infants. These tiny monkeys have more than 30 unusual sounds that they apply for communicating with each other. They contribute in the dispersal of seeds of the fruit they consume. A big numbers of tamarins have been exported for biomedical studies.
The breeding systems are grouped into an array that is based on who accepts the responsibility for their young’s care. There are independent breeders, in which care is provided almost exclusively by their mothers, as tamarins. Moreover, the family is dynamically engaged in infant care and helps considerably the sustenance of the offspring (Snowdon & Ziegler, 2007). Among all primate species, the tamarins display the strongest dependence on cooperative breeding (Hrdy, 2009).
The tamarins are believed to be the most well-defined system of family care in an infant breeding. Field studies on tamarins (Garber et al., 1984) showed that an infant survival is directly concerned to the number of assistants exist. Remarkably, similar results have been noted in tamarins with group sizes 5 or above having the best infant survival (Snowdon, 1996).
In tamarins, mothers give birth to twins that weigh up to 20% of their mother’s weight at birth. Hence, a female tamarin can produce four infants per annum. The infant care of tamarin by the father and by others helps the female of the considerable burden of carrying their babies. The infant tamarins become larger and represent a significant physical burden for those that hold them. There are couples of studies in which tamarins males shed up to 10% of their body weight throughout the most rigorous time of infant care (Sanchez et al., 1999; Achenbach & Snowdon, 2002).
With growing numbers of alloparents, the weight loss is considerably reduced in each case. A weight loss of about 10% would mean a major energy loss and exertion for males, and hence there exist multiple caregivers for the infant tamarins. In another study of tamarins it is found that those carrying infants had considerably less time for eating, moving, or involving in various social relations (Price, 1992). Male tamarins gains weight all over their mate’s pregnancy (Ziegler et al., 2006), which may help them for the consequent weight loss that is caused by infant care. Besides, the fathers and alloparents are vital not only for carrying infants, they also play a major role in the weaning process. Food-sharing, as a result of direct offer of food to infant tamarins, is common in all tamarin species studied so far (Brown et al., 2004).
In some varieties, the adult tamarins have particular, strong types of food-related screams that seem to draw infant focus to food and to signify that food is accessible. In tamarin groups, the infants have a better prospect of getting food from the adult when the adult creates these screams in contrast to when they, in fact, do not (Roush & Snowdon, 2001; Joyce & Snowdon, 2007). In the wild tamarins, adults use these focused screams to guide the young towards hard to catch insects or to find out where they can obtain insect prey (Rapaport & Ruiz-Miranda, 2002; Rapaport, 2006).
The method of food sharing is hypothesized to complement food and to offer knowledge to tamarin infants regarding new foods. The research of tamarins (Rapaport, 1999) shows food sharing is better with the new foods to the infants and is quite hard to realize. Field researches on the tamarins show that food sharing is utilized to assist the infants finding the animal prey, with the adults doing less food sharing when infants become more capable (Rapaport & Ruiz-Miranda, 2002; Rapaport, 2006). Given the animal prey is extremely wholesome, both diet and informational theory is validated. Irrespective of whether food sharing has a dietary or informational function, the consequence is that food sharing may assist the infants finish the weaning process earlier than they might have without the sharing of the food. Especially, the tamarins start food sharing with twins faster than they do when they have been single, and consequently twins feed separately prior to singleton (Joyce & Snowdon, 2007).
For tamarins, infant support is certainly a family affair. It is noted that infant survival is a task of various caregivers. The caregivers bear considerable physical exertion as shown by their weight loss all over the period of infant care and further by means of having high-quality food with infants throughout the weaning process. Different family members take their turns holding their babies, working as food resources, and as sentinels for the tamarin families. This is done by post-pubertal tamarins that, rather than reproducing themselves, are assisting to care for babies not belonging to them. The management of food search, care giving, and vigilance necessitates a high level of communication amongst the group members.
The baby tamarin mother’s acceptance of the father’s role in infant care is vital. There has been great inconsistency in the role of parents in infant care, in the first-time parents. The mothers carry their babies from 20%-80% of the time in the first couples of weeks following the birth. The first time mothers carried their babies in over 90% of the notes in the first couple of weeks, whilst the practiced mothers more enthusiastically, helped others to bear their infants. The first time parents have better deaths of infants than the more skilled parents (Snowdon, 1996), and this high death rate may be caused by lack of harmonization between the parents or to the disinclination of first time parents to share infant-carrying with their mates. In practice, parents with the existence of alloparents, the mothers generally hold infants only 15% of the time, contacting their infants only to look after them (Ziegler et al., 1990).
A number of research studies in non-human primates have shown that differences in motherly care can impact how the infants develop, both physiologically and behaviorally. Washabaugh et al. (2002) noted the caretaking activities in various tamarin families that differed in the scale of past infant caretaking practice in the family organization. It was seen that there existed a wide discrepancy in the amount of care that an individual family member offered to the young ones. Nevertheless, when considering the care from the outlook of what the infants got, all the young ones got equal quality of caretaking irrespective of the differences in various caretakers’ dissimilarity as a result of experience or difference on account of group size. It seemed that having several assistants offered a defense against the difference in care by specific family member to ensure that each infant got reliable care.
The protection of various parenting styles and endeavors by several caretakers has major connotations. Behavioral difference in infant tamarins may be more probable as a result of the disposition or genetic dissimilarity rather than a consequence of parental behavior. The capability of other family members to recompense for a deficiency of importance or denial of infants by a mother increases the quality of care the infants will get and assures that all infants get reliable care.
Tamarins are assumed to need help from non-reproductive assistants in raising their offspring owing to environmental and physical complexities of gestation and care of the young tamarins, normally the twins (Goldizen, 1987a; Tardif, 1994). Non-reproductive assistants may sacrifice their own reproduction and help the reproductive individuals to improve their general health through better survival or reproduction of babies (Brown, 1987).
In a research, the tamarin infants got just about 75% of infant carrying and nearly 60% of solid food transfer from their parents, and the rest from non-reproductive assistants. The need of disparities in carrying and food transfers between sub-adult assistants, who continued to grow and hone foraging skills, and the adult assistants imply that the adult helpers may be physically able to provide more care than they provide. One account for why the alloparents did not help in the better amount of infant carrying is that the amount of help may be less significant to reproductive than the time of help. The helping of infant care, even in small scale, would help the reproductive persons to carry out activities that are mismatched with infant caretaking owing to the physical load of carrying the babies and the need to continue anti-predator activities (Caine, 1993). These outcomes were in agreement with data on some kinds of cooperative breeding birds and mammals in which reproductive creatures offer more care than do the non-reproductive ones (Gilchrist & Russell, 2007).
The physical load of carrying tamarin infants has been believed to be troublesome since it affects leaping capability of caregivers (Schradin & Anzenberger, 2001) and is related with a decrease in food consumption and movements (Sánchez et al., 1999; Tardif & Bales, 1997). The reproductive tamarin females especially may gain from helpers’ aid to care if it decreases physical energy costs (Scantlebury et al., 2002).
A study showed that tamarin reproductive females are in a better physical condition that carried infants more commonly in the first three weeks of infancy than individuals with rather pitiable conditions, apparently because they have the resources to do so (Bales et al., 2002). If that account were true, then it is expected that all caregivers in rather good condition, not only the reproductive females, to help more in the infant care. Nevertheless, the results imply that the caregiver stat does not affect the distribution of infant movement from birth through weaning, nor does it affect their role in the solid food provision. The reproductive females are the main caretakers the first three weeks; however; they reduce their contribution with the maturity of infants (Baker, 1991). Thus, the conditions of female tamarin may be more significant throughout the early infant care, when the physical load is greater, in contrast to closer to weaning period. Though reproductive males and females offer equal amounts of infant movement through weaning, males have a tendency to offer more care when infants are older and are heavier (Baker, 1991).
In tamarins, the female assistants experience more physical labor throughout the movement since they are more probable to be attacked by the existing group members than males. They are less liable to transfer directly into defensive groups and have a tendency to disperse as singletons, whilst male assistants have a tendency to quit in the same sex pairs (Baker & Dietz, 1996; Baker et al., 1993). The adult female assistants would offer more infant care than male assistants owing to bigger limitations on successful dispersal. The female assistants do not carry the infants more than adult male assistants, and they have a tendency to offer less food transfers than the adult male assistants. In case the danger of expulsion is negligible for an adult female assistant, then offering infant care may not impact her chance of continuing with the group. Hypothetical models show that when there is no danger of expulsion, the assistants should only offer infant care if they get direct health gains (Hamilton & Taborsky, 2005).
In view of the fact the males normally disperse in same-sex pairs, the adult male assistants are expected to offer more carrying and more solid food to the male infants so as to improve their chances of good dispersal with the infants in the future. Nevertheless, the data that neither adult nor sub-adult male assistants carried solid food to male infants instead of female infants implies that the male assistants do not offer care so as to improve their chances of good dispersal.
Remarkably, the tendency of adult male assistants to do more assistance than adult female assistants is in agreement with the findings on other primates. Tamarin infants are not moved more by male assistants than the female assistants; however, infants seek considerably more food transfers from adult male assistants and are more at ease in getting food from adult males than the other group members (Roush & Snowdon, 2001). In a study, the infants started about 70% of food transfers whilst about 20% of food transfers were provided for infants. Thus, the unequal amount of food transfers by adult males may take place since infants preferentially solicit food from particular caregivers, as takes place in other breeding mammals (Hodge et al., 2007).
The existence of assistance may help reproductive tamarins in large groups to decrease their investment. The researches on tamarins show poor care by reproductive males in the attendance of several assistants (Bales et al., 2000) as well as by reproductive females when the tamarin infants are about 2-3 weeks old (Bales et al., 2002). On the other hand, the above studies found that the group size did not affect infant carrying by reproductive males or females, a result, in agreement with data on captive tamarins (Tardif et al., 2002). The contradictory outcomes for females are probably as a result of difference in the distribution of infant care in weeks two and three till the full 12-week of dependence. With the maturity of infants, there is a decrease in both nursing and time being carried, which helps the females to decrease their investment eventually (Tardif et al., 2002). Moreover, the group size did impact movement by adult male assistants, in contrast with those in small groups carrying infants. The data imply that the adult males in small groups, though not large groups, may offer more infant care to realize access to the reproductive female.
In conclusion, infant caretaking patterns were strongly affected by reproductive condition with the parents helping considerably more care than the alloparents. Infant care in tamarins is critical for their survival and caregiver reproductive success since it keeps the infants within the group and offers the necessary protection from predators. The need of disparity based on caregiver age, class, as well as physical status in infant care and solid food provision, implies that this care behavior may be depicted by a single feature that is universal to most alloparents in the group i.e. the genetic relationships with the infants.
Moreover, the data imply that reproductives carry out the mainstream of infant caring, that the alloparents contribute to infant care to realize various benefits and that infant behavior may be affecting the alloparents contributions to the caretaking.
The development and production of tamarins as primate models for research has significant benefit, namely relatively close relationships to humans. The tamarins are those species that have been most widely analyzed and researched, and these captive creatures are most readily available. They are, however, not the only appropriate species and other species may be considered for the research (See Austad, 2011; Edrey et al., 2011; Waters, 2011). The research on tamarins merits deliberation on account of their demographic suitability and extensive application in different kinds of biomedical studies.
Achenbach, G. G. & Snowdon, C. T. (2002). Costs of caregiving: Weight loss in captive adult male cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) following the birth of infants. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 179–189.
Almond, R.E., Ziegler, T.E. & Snowdon, C. (2008). Changes in prolactin and glucocorticoid levels in cotton-top tamarin fathers during their mate’s pregnancy: The effect on infants and paternal experience. American J Primatol 70:560-565.
Austad, S.N. (2011). Candidate bird species for use in aging research. ILAR J 52:89-96.
Baker, A.J. (1991). Evolution of the social system of the golden lion tamarin. College Park: University of Maryland.
Bales, K., Dietz, J., Baker, A., Miller, K. & Tardif, S.D. (2000). Effects of allocare-givers on the fitness of infants and parents in callitrichid primates. Folia Primatologica 71:27-38.
Bales, K., French, J.A. & Dietz, J.M. (2002). Explaining variation in maternal care in a cooperatively breeding mammal. Animal Behaviour 63:453-461.
Brown, J.L. (1987). Helping and Communal Breeding in Birds: Ecology and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brown, G.R., Almond, R. E. A. & van Bergen, Y. (2004). Begging, stealing, and offering: Food transfers in nonhuman primates. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 34, 265–295.
Brown, G. R., Almond, R. E. A. & Bates, N. J. (2005). Adult-infant food transfer in common marmosets: An experimental study. American Journal of Primatology, 65, 301–312.
Burrell, A.M. & Altman, J.D. (2006). The effect of the captive environment on activity of captive cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Appl Anim Welf Sci 9:269-276.
Fernandez-Duque E., Valeggia, C. R. & Mendoza S. P. (2009). The biology of paternal care in human and nonhuman primates. Annual. Rev. Anthropol. 38, 115–130.
Caine, N. G. (1993). Flexibility and co-operation as unifying themes in Saguinus social organization and behaviour: The role of predation pressures. In A. B. Rylands Marmosets and tamarins: Systematics, behaviour and ecology, (pp. 200–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edrey, Y., Hanes, M., Pinto, M., Mele, J. & Buffenstein, R. (2011). Successful aging and sustained good health in the naked mole rat: A long-lived mammalian model for biogerontology and biomedical research. ILAR J 52: 41-53.
Garber, P. A., Moya, L. & Malaga, C. (1984). A preliminary field study of the mustached tamarin monkey (Saguinus mystax) in Northeastern Peru: Questions concerned with the evolution of a communal breeding system. Folia Primatologica, 42, 17–32.
Gilchrist, J.S. & Russell, A.F, (2007). Who cares? Individual contributions to pup care by breeders vs. non-breeders in the cooperatively breeding banded mongoose (Mungos mungo). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:1053-1060.
Goldizen, A.W. (1987a). Facultative Polyandry And The Role Of Infant-Carrying In Wild Saddle-Back Tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 20:99-109.
Hamilton, I.M. &Taborsky, M. (2005). Unrelated helpers will not fully compensate for costs imposed on breeders when they pay to stay. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272:445-454.
Hodge, S.J., Flower, T.P. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2007). Offspring competition and helper associations in cooperative meerkats. Animal Behaviour 74:957-964.
Hrdy, S. (2009). Mothers and others: the evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Joyce, S. M. & Snowdon, C. T. (2007). Developmental changes in food transfers in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). American Journal of Primatology. Growing Up Cooperatively 63.
Lemere, C.A., Oh, J., Stanish, H.A., Peng, Y., Pepivani, I., Fagan, A.M., Yamaguchi, H., Westmoreland, S.V. & Mansfield, K.G. (2008). Cerebral amyloid-beta protein accumulation with aging in cotton-top tamarins: A model of early Alzheimer’s disease? Rejuvenation Res 11:21-332.
Price, E. C. (1992). The costs of infant carrying in captive cotton-top tamarins. American Journal of Primatology, 26, 23–33.
Rapaport, L. G. (1999). Provisioning of young in golden lion tamarins (Callitrichidae, Leontopithecus rosalia): A test of the information hypothesis. Ethology, 105, 619–636.
Rapaport, L. G. & Ruiz-Miranda, C. R. (2002). Tutoring in wild golden lion tamarins. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 1063–1070.
Roush, R. S. & Snowdon, C. T. (2001). Food transfers and the development of feeding behavior and food-associated vocalizations in cotton-top tamarins. Ethology, 107, 415–429.
Sanchez, S., Peleaz, F., Gil-Burmann, C. & Kaumanns, W. (1999). Costs of infant carrying in the cotton-top tamarin. American Journal of Primatology, 48, 99–111.
Scantlebury, M., Russell, A.F., McIlrath, G.M., Speakman, J.R. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2002). The energetics of lactation in cooperatively breeding meerkats Suricata suricatta. Proceedings of The Royal Society Of London Series B-Biological Sciences 269:2147-2153.
Schradin, C. & Anzenberger, G. (2001). Costs of infant carrying in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: an experimental analysis. Animal Behaviour 62:289-295.
Snowdon, C. T. (1996). Parental care in cooperatively breeding species. In J. S. Rosenblatt & C. T. Snowdon (Eds.), Parental care: Evolution, mechanisms and adaptive significance. (pp. 643–689). San Diego: Academic Press.
Snowdon, C. T. (2001). Social processes in communication and cognition in callitrichid monkeys: a review. Anim. Cogn. 4, 247–257.
Snowdon, C. T. & Cronin K. A. (2007). Cooperative breeders do cooperate. Behav. Process. 76, 138–141.
Snowdon, C. T. & Ziegler T. Z. (2007). Growing up cooperatively: family processes and infant care in marmosets and tamarins. J. Dev. Process. 2, 40–66.
Snowdon, C.T., Pieper, B.A., Boe, C.Y., Cronin, K.A., Kurian, A.V. & Ziegler, T.E. (2010). Variation in oxytocin is related to variation in affiliative behavior in monogamous, pairbonded tamarins. Horm Behav 58:614-618.
Tardif, S.D. (1994). Relative Energetic Cost Of Infant Care In Small-Bodied Neotropical Primates And Its Relation To Infant-Care Patterns. American Journal of Primatology 34:133-143.
Tardif, S.D. & Bales, K. (1997). Is infant-carrying a courtship strategy in callitrichid primates? Animal Behaviour 53:1001-1007.
Washabaugh, K. F., Ziegler, T. E., & Snowdon, C. T. (2002). Variations in care for cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus) infants as a function of parental experience and group size. Animal Behaviour, 63, 1163–1174.
Waters, D.J. (2011). Aging research 2011: Exploring the pet dog paradigm. ILAR J 52:97-105.
Wildman, D.E., Jameson, N.M., Opazo, J.C. & Yi, S.V. (2009). A fully resolved genus level phylogeny of neotropical primates (Platyrrhini). Mol Phylogen Evol 53:694-702.
Ziegler, T.E. & Snowdon, C.T. (2000). Preparental hormone levels and parenting experience in male cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Horm Behav 38:159-167.
Ziegler, T. E., Prudom, S. L., Schultz-Darken, N. J., Kurian, A. V. & Snowdon, C. T. (2006). Pregnancy weight gain: Marmoset and tamarin dads show it too. Biological Letters of the Royal Society, 2, 181–183.
Ziegler, T. E., Widowski, T. M., Larson, M. L. & Snowdon, C. T. (1990). Nursing does affect the duration of the postpartum to ovulation interval in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 90, 563–570.
Ziegler, T.E., Wegner, F.H., Carlson, A.A., Lazaro-Perea, C. & Snowdon, C.T. (2000). Prolactin levels during the periparturitional period in the biparental cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus): Interactions with gender, androgen levels, and parenting. Horm Behav 38:111-122.