Crop Raiding Patterns of Solitary and Social Groups of Red-Tailed Monkeys on Cocoa Pods in Uganda

Baranga, Deborah; Basuta, Gilbert I; Teichroeb, Julie A.; Chapman, Colin A.

doi:10.1177/194008291200500109

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hockings et al 2006. Solitary red-tail monkeys (C. ascanius), which are harder to detect than when in social groups (Wallace and Hill 2012), venture further from the forest edge and consequently cause proportionally greater damage than animals foraging in groups (Baranga et al 2012). These results illustrate the high level of behavioural and social plasticity primates are capable of, especially when living in human-modified landscapes.…”

Section: Primates' Behavioural and Social Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…de Freitas et al (2008), McKinney (2011)) also share similar abilities and propensities. However, smaller-sized and less cognitively advanced primates such as guenon species, including red-tailed monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius), also employ effective strategies to forage on crops at the forest edge by adopting solitary, cryptic behaviours when foraging in crops (Baranga et al 2012;Wallace and Hill 2012).…”

Section: What Primate Species and Where?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation

Humle¹,

Hill²

2016

An Introduction to Primate Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homo sapiens have, since they evolved, shared landscapes and resources with wildlife (Paterson 2005), and like other animals, compete with those species they share space with.Consequently it seems fair to assume there is a long history of interaction between people and wildlife; with interactions taking on a range of different characteristics from mutually beneficial or benign, to even harmful. It is these harmful, or apparently conflictual interactions, that are frequently referred to as 'human-wildlife conflicts'. According to the 2005 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress, 'humanwildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife' (IUCN 2005).Recent years have witnessed a notable shift away from employing the term 'humanwildlife conflict' or any other terms such as 'crop-raiding', 'raider', 'thief' that position wildlife as conscious antagonists of people (Peterson et al. 2010). Such terms are perceived as detrimental to promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, partly because they mask the fact that conflicts arise as a consequence of stakeholders ascribing different values to different animal species (Peterson et al. 2010;Redpath et al. 2013). This shift in terminology has coincided with a notable surge in research on interactions between people and primates. This trend parallels recent intensification of human encroachment into natural habitats linked to agricultural, ranching, and extractive industrial activities, as well as increased urbanisation across primate range states. The spatial overlap between people and primates is ever increasing; primates face declining availability of their wild food supplies and restrictions in their access to space, water, nesting sites and familiar and safe habitat. In this context, the human-primate interface poses an increasing challenge for conservation, and studying it requires a cross-disciplinary approach, combining methodological and theoretical approaches from both the social and natural sciences.In this chapter we review primate-human relationships, patterns and lessons learnt, as well as studies that have sought to mitigate and/or prevent negative interactions between people and wildlife. We demonstrate that engaging with so called 'primate-human conflict' issues requires an ethically sensitive approach, encompassing the active participation and involvement of all stakeholders concerned, and especially those sharing landscapes with their primate relatives. Characterizing interactions Types of interactionsInteractions between people and primates can take on many different forms entailing a range of combinations of positive, neutral or negative outcomes for both parties. For instance, the Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii) forage on damaged, immature coconuts; this pruning process, in effect, promotes palm productivity and monkeys in some areas, also attract tourists, thus potentially cont...

show abstract

Section: Primates' Behavioural and Social Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: What Primate Species and Where?mentioning

confidence: 99%

People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation

Humle¹,

Hill²

2016

An Introduction to Primate Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, where data are available measured losses vary between farms and seasons, even at the same site (Hill 2000, Wallace 2010, Warren et al 2007, Webber 2006. Red-tailed monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) at KNP, Uganda, were responsible for 15% of crop damage in one year, but in another year for only 1% of damage recorded (Baranga et al 2012).…”

Section: Crop Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

Hill

2018

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop foraging or crop raiding concerns wildlife foraging and farmers’ reactions and responses to it. To understand crop foraging and its value to wildlife or its implications for humans requires a cross-disciplinary approach that considers the behavior and ecology of wild animals engaging in this behavior; the types and levels of competition for resources between people and wildlife; people's perceptions of and attitudes toward wildlife, including animals that forage on crops; and discourse about animals and their behaviors and how these discourses can be used for expressing dissent and distress about other social conflicts. So, to understand and respond to conflicts about crop damage, we need to look beyond what people lose, i.e., crop loss and economic equivalence, and focus more on what people say about wildlife and why they say it.

show abstract

“…This gap of information may be related, at least partially, to the fact that forest animals may perceive the matrix as a dangerous place where they are more exposed to predation and hunting, and thus, they avoid the use of this landscape element. However, there is evidence that primates are able to use different land covers in the matrix (Estrada et al, 2017), including agroecosystems (Estrada, Raboy, & Oliveira, 2012), and other land covers, such as secondary forests, live fences, subsistence orchards, and isolated trees; but the available information is limited to only a few folivorous (Colobus guereza: Harris & Chapman, 2007; Colobus angolensis: Anderson, Rowcliffe, & Cowlishaw, 2007; Alouatta palliata : Asensio, Arroyo-Rodrı´guez, Dunn, & Cristo´bal-Azkarate, 2009; Alouatta pigra: Pozo-Montuy, Serio-Silva, Chapman, & Bonilla-Sa´nchez, 2013;Alouatta guariba: Bicca-Marques & Calegaro-Marques, 1995;Chaves & Bicca-Marques, 2017), omnivorous (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii : Reynolds, Wallis, & Kyamanywa, 2003), and frugivorous/insectivorous monkeys (Callicebus negrifrons : Trevelin, Port-Carvalho, Silveira, & Morell, 2007; Cercopithecus ascanius : Baranga, Basuta, Teichroeb, & Chapman, 2012). The available information for frugivorous primates, such as the spider monkey (genus Ateles), is very scarce.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spider Monkeys in Human-Modified Landscapes

Arroyo‐Rodríguez

Pérez-Elissetche

Ordóñez-Gómez

et al. 2017

Tropical Conservation Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the extant of tropical forest degradation, primates increasingly inhabit forest patches embedded in anthropogenic matrices. Such matrices are composed of different land cover types (e.g., agricultural lands and cattle pastures), but large uncertainty remains about the ability of primates to use these land covers. Here, we assessed the use of the landscape matrix by spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in 13 forest sites from three countries (Mexico, Costa Rica, and El Salvador). Based on ad libitum records from >212 months of field observations, we found that spider monkeys used four types of land covers for feeding or traveling: secondary vegetation, isolated trees, tree crops, and vegetation corridors. Secondary vegetation was more frequently used than the other land covers. The number of land covers present in the matrix was positively related to the number of land covers used for traveling and feeding. Monkeys consumed 53 plant species in the matrix, mostly native and old-growth or late-successional forest species, although they also used three cultivated tree species. Most species were trees, especially from preferred food species, although monkeys also used palms, lianas, and shrubs. Monkeys fed principally from fruits, but they also used leaves, wood, and flowers. Most species were used from secondary vegetation and isolated trees. These findings suggest that the landscape matrix can provide supplementary food sources for this endangered primate and opportunities for traveling (i.e., spatial connectivity) in human-modified landscapes-information that can be used to improve conservation strategies, especially under the context of land-sharing management strategies (e.g., agroforestry).

show abstract

Crop Raiding Patterns of Solitary and Social Groups of Red-Tailed Monkeys on Cocoa Pods in Uganda

Cited by 20 publications

References 31 publications

People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation

People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

Spider Monkeys in Human-Modified Landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About