Aim To determine and explain biological traits that distinguish rare from common primate taxa. Location Africa, Americas, Asia, Madagascar. Methods We compare the biology of rare primate taxa with the biology of common taxa. Rarity is defined by (1) small size of geographic range; (2) small geographic range plus low local population density; and (3) small geographic range plus low local density plus narrow habitat specificity. After a linear comparison of size of geographic range with various biological traits, globally and by realm, extremes of rarity and commonness per realm are identified, and then combined for a global analysis. Tests are done both with genera treated as independent data points (n=62), and also with phylogenetic control by use of an independent contrasts test. Extinction risk in vertebrates, including primates, often correlates with high resource requirements, slow population recovery rate, and specialization. The three indices of rarity are therefore compared with these three general traits. Measures of resource use are body mass, local density, annual range size, and group size; of recovery rate, interbirth interval, and maximum intrinsic rate of natural population increase; and of degree of specialization, variety of diet, of habitats, maximum latitude, and morphological variety. All data come from the literature. Because several measures are compared, probabilities are Bonferroni corrected. Results If rarity in primates correlates with any biological attribute, it consistently correlates with only measures of specialization, and not with measures of high resource use, or slow population recovery rate. Without phylogenetic correction, the first two indices of rarity associate significantly with all four measures of specialization, and the third with maximum latitude. With phylogenetic correction, the first index still associates with all four, the second with two (maximum latitude, number of species per genus), and the third shows no significant associations. While the four measures of specialization are strongly interrelated, stepwise regressions on geographic range indicate that maximum latitude has the strongest effect, followed by dietary variety and number of species per genus and, finally, habitat variety. Main conclusions The most commonly demonstrated traits of susceptibility to extinction are those of high resource use, slow recovery rate, and specialization. Yet, while rarity (almost however, it is defined) is an inevitable precursor to extinction, specialization is the only trait found to correlate with rarity in this study. We cannot explain this apparent contradiction.

Aim Across a wide variety of organisms, taxa with high local densities (abundance) have large geographical ranges (distributions). We use primatology's detailed knowledge of its taxon to investigate the form and causes of the relationship in, unusually for macroecological analysis, a tropical taxon.Location Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Madagascar.Methods To investigate the form of the density-range relationship, we regressed local density on geographical range size, and also on female body mass, because in the Primates, density correlates strongly with mass. To investigate the biological causes of the relationship, we related (1) abundance (density · range size) and(2) residuals from the density-range regression lines to various measures of (i) resource use, (ii) reproductive rate and (iii) potential specialization. All data are from the literature. Analyses were done at the level of species (n ¼ 140), genera (n ¼ 60) and families/subfamilies (n ¼ 17). We present various levels of results, including for all data, after omission of outlier data, after correction for phylogenetic dependence, and after Bonferroni correction of probabilities for multiple comparisons.Results Regarding the form of the relationship, Madagascar primates are clear outliers (high densities in small ranges). Among the remaining three realms, the relation of density to range is weak or non-existent at the level of species and genera. However, it is strong, tight and linear at the level of families/subfamilies (r 2 ¼ 0.6, F 1,10 ¼ 19, P < 0.01). Although among primates, density is very significantly related to mass, at no taxonomic level is range size related to body mass. Consequently, removing the effects of mass makes little to no difference to density-range results. Regarding the biology of the relationship, only traits indicative of specialization are associated with abundance (meaning numbers): rare taxa are more specialized than are abundant taxa. The association is largely via range size, not density. Across families, no traits correlate significantly with the density-range relationship, nor with deviations from it, despite the strength of the relationship at this taxonomic level.Main conclusions We suggest that in macroecology, analysis at taxonomic levels deeper than that of the relatively ephemeral species can be appropriate. We argue that the several purely methodological explanations for the positive density-range size relationship in primates can be rejected. Of the various biological hypotheses, those having to do with specialization-generalization seem the only applicable ones. The fact that the relationship is entirely via range size, not via density, means that while we might have a biology of range size, we do not yet have one of the density-geographical range relationship. It is probably time to search for multivariate explanations, rather than univariate ones. However, we Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2005) 32, 565-579 ª 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd www.blackwellpublishing.com/jbi

No abstract

Primates are an extraordinarily well‐known tropical forest, mammalian taxon. We investigated potential modes of niche separation in primates by identifying sympatric species with putatively similar niche characteristics and assessing potential competition using data gleaned from an extensive literature review. We defined competing species‐pairs as (a) sympatric species in which (b) the body mass of the larger species was within 30 percent of the smaller species’ mass and (c) the species had the same category of diet. A sample of 43 well‐studied forests (7–20 per continent) provided 673 pairs of sympatric primate species. Of these, 45 pairs (7%) are potential competitors by our definition. Africa has the largest number of competing pairs (17 pairs), while Asia might have the highest percentage of competitors in each forest site (17%). Niche separation was investigated for each pair by examining them for each of eight possible modes of separation: detailed differences in diets (28% of potential competitors), use of different heights in the forest (25%), use of different types of forest (14%), use of different locations within the forest (11%), use of support branches of different diameters (7%), different ranging behavior (6%), different techniques of prey capture (4%), and differential timing of activity (4%). The use of different heights in the forest is the dominant form of potential separation in Africa (31% of competing species‐pairs) and Asia (38%), while detailed differences in diet appears to be the primary mode of niche separation in the Americas (26%) and Madagascar (32%).

No abstract