Humans and their associated anthropogenic factors may strongly affect the demographics, activity, and fragmentation of wild animal populations. Yet, the degree and nature of such impact on indicators of animals' social relationships remain largely under-investigated, despite the well-documented importance of strong social ties for an individuals' health and fitness. Here, we examined whether interactions with humans may affect core aspects of social life in a primate species, by constraining the time available for individuals to engage in social interactions. Specifically, we predicted that individuals who spent more time monitoring or interacting with humans reduce their time socializing with conspecifics (i.e., the time constraints hypothesis). Alternatively, human presence may result in increased levels of stress, leading to an increase in social behaviours which serve as a coping mechanism (i.e., the social stress hypothesis). We collected data between September 2016 and September 2017 on four groups of long-tailed macaques in Malaysia at two sites with differing levels of human impact. In support of the time constraints hypothesis, we found that at the site with moderate human impact, monkeys who monitored human activity more frequently engaged less often in grooming. In contrast, at the site with high human impact, we found evidence supporting the social stress hypothesis, as indicators of stress were positively associated with social interactions, although we could not link them to the presence of humans. Our results suggest that the nature of human impact on macaques' social behaviour is dependent upon the intensity of human activity and interaction with the macaques. These findings therefore provide insights into how humans may influence individual fitness and group social structure in animals living in an anthropogenic environment. More broadly, our results may lead to a better understanding of animal behaviour in anthropogenic environments, implementing conservation and population management strategies, and mitigating human-wildlife conflict.

No abstract

In primates, living in an anthropogenic environment can significantly improve an individual's fitness, which is likely attributed to access to anthropogenic food resources. However, in nonprofessionally provisioned groups, few studies have examined whether individual attributes, such as dominance rank and sex, affect primates' ability to access anthropogenic food. Here, we investigated whether rank and sex explain individual differences in the proportion of anthropogenic food consumed by macaques. We observed 319 individuals living in nine urban groups across three macaque species. We used proportion of anthropogenic food in the diet as a proxy of access to those food resources. Males and high-ranking individuals in both sexes had significantly higher proportions of anthropogenic food in their diets than other individuals. We speculate that unequal access to anthropogenic food resources further increases withingroup competition, and may limit fitness benefits in an anthropogenic environment to certain individuals.

The emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in late 2019 and human responses to the resulting COVID‐19 pandemic in early 2020 have rapidly changed many aspects of human behavior, including our interactions with wildlife. In this commentary, we identify challenges and opportunities at human–primate interfaces in light of COVID‐19, focusing on examples from Asia, and make recommendations for researchers working with wild primates to reduce zoonosis risk and leverage research opportunities. First, we briefly review the evidence for zoonotic origins of SARS‐CoV‐2 and discuss risks of zoonosis at the human–primate interface. We then identify challenges that the pandemic has caused for primates, including reduced nutrition, increased intraspecific competition, and increased poaching risk, as well as challenges facing primatologists, including lost research opportunities. Subsequently, we highlight opportunities arising from pandemic‐related lockdowns and public health messaging, including opportunities to reduce the intensity of problematic human–primate interfaces, opportunities to reduce the risk of zoonosis between humans and primates, opportunities to reduce legal and illegal trade in primates, new opportunities for research on human–primate interfaces, and opportunities for community education. Finally, we recommend specific actions that primatologists should take to reduce contact and aggression between humans and primates, to reduce demand for primates as pets, to reduce risks of zoonosis in the context of field research, and to improve understanding of human–primate interfaces. Reducing the risk of zoonosis and promoting the well‐being of humans and primates at our interfaces will require substantial changes from “business as usual.” We encourage primatologists to help lead the way.

No abstract