Demography and group composition of<i>Ateles</i>

Shimooka, Yukiko; Campbell, Christina J.; Fiore, Anthony Di; Felton, Annika M.; Izawa, Kosei; Link, Andrés; Nishimura, Akisato; Ramos‐Fernández, Gabriel; Wallace, Robert B.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511721915.012

Cited by 64 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The proportion of adult females and young were similar between the survey data without using individual identities (0.48 and 0.42) and the actual group composition (0.47 and 0.39), suggesting that surveys are reliable sources of information of group composition for these age-sex classes. These proportions fell within those of adult females and young reported for other spider monkey populations [adult females: 0.33-0.52, young: 0.20-0.45; Shimooka et al, 2008]. The proportion of adult males was only slightly lower using the survey data (0.10) than the actual group composition (0.14).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…We defined young as individuals younger than 5 years but older than 1 year, given that infants aged less than 1 year still cling to their mothers' bodies for large periods of time and individuals younger than 5 years are found in the same subgroup as their mother [Vick, 2008]. Subadults were individuals between 5 and 8 years old, being sexually mature but not fully grown, and adults were individuals older than 8 years [Shimooka et al, 2008]. Females can be easily distinguished from adult males based on the presence of a protruding clitoris.…”

Section: Study Site and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Survey Design Affects Monkey Counts: A Case Study on Individually Recognized Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi)

Spaan

Ramos‐Fernández

Schaffner

et al. 2017

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fast movement and high degree of fission-fusion dynamics of spider monkeys (Ateles spp.) make them notoriously difficult to survey. We examined which aspects of survey design affect spider monkey sightings along transects in a group of individually recognized spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Punta Laguna, Yucatan, Mexico. We calculated the number of monkeys and subgroups sighted per transect walk. Using generalized linear models, we found no effect of the number of observers, transect type (new vs. existing), walking speed, or time of day on individual monkey counts or subgroup counts. Recounting of individuals was relatively rare and occurred when transects were walked relatively slowly. We missed more young than adult monkeys. The group composition based on survey data was similar to the known group composition. Based on our findings we recommend that surveys performed on relatively flat terrain be conducted at speeds similar to or faster than the moving speed of spider monkeys to minimize recounting of individuals and that young:adult female ratios based on survey data be interpreted as conservative indicators of population health.The novel methods presented to determine sources of bias in population estimates are applicable to a wide range of primates that are difficult to survey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Study Site and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Survey Design Affects Monkey Counts: A Case Study on Individually Recognized Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi)

Spaan

Ramos‐Fernández

Schaffner

et al. 2017

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their high degree of fission-fusion sociality allows large groups to disperse widely in the pursuit of high-energy ripe fruit, whilst minimizing intragroup feeding competition [Symington, 1988[Symington, , 2000Asensio et al, 2008;Link et al, 2012]. Spider monkeys have long interbirth intervals ( ∼ 36 months [Shimooka et al, 2008, Vick, 2008). As a result of deforestation and fragmentation, populations have declined in a number of Ateles spp., and many populations are now limited to forest fragments and degraded habitats [Ramos-Fernández and Ayala-Orozco, 2002;Ramos-Fernández and Wallace, 2008;Rangel-Negrín et al, 2009;Link et al, 2010;Abondano and Link, 2012;Rimbach et al, 2012].…”

Section: Study Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Fragment and Vegetation Structure on the Population Abundance of Ateles hybridus, Alouatta seniculus and Cebus albifrons in Magdalena Valley, Colombia

Marsh

Link

King‐Bailey³

et al. 2016

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many primate species currently subsist in fragmented and anthropogenically disturbed habitats. Different threats arise depending on the species' life history strategy, dietary requirements and habitat preference. Additionally, anthropogenic disturbance is far from uniform and may affect individual forest fragments in a single landscape in differing ways. We studied the effects of fragmentation on three species of diurnal primate, Cebus albifrons, Alouatta seniculus and Ateles hybridus, in Magdalena Valley, Colombia. We tested the assumption that generalist species are more resilient than specialist species to habitat degradation by examining the fragments' vegetation and spatial structure and how these affected primate presence and abundance patterns. We found C. albifrons, a generalist, to be the most abundant species in 9 of 10 forest fragments, regardless of the level of habitat disturbance. A. hybridus, a large-bodied primate with a specialist diet, was either absent or low in abundance in fragments that had experienced recent disturbances and was found only in higher-quality fragments, regardless of the fragment size. A. seniculus, a species considered to have a highly flexible diet and the ability to survive in degraded habitat, was found in intermediate abundances between those of Cebus spp. and Ateles spp., and was more frequently found in high-quality fragments.

show abstract

“…Spider monkeys generally occupy the high canopy (25-35 m) of the terra firme forests [Nunes, 1995] but are known occasionally to use lower forest layers and to come to the ground to drink or practise geophagy [Link et al, 2011], but we did not record the use of ground level by spider monkeys at MES. Although predation on Ateles is not common, successful predation events have been reported involving large raptors (crested eagles, M. guianensis ; harpy eagles, H. harpyja ) and large felids (cougars, P. concolor ; jaguars, P. onca ) [Emmons, 1987;Julliot, 1994;Chinchilla-Romero, 1997;Ford and Boinski, 2007;Matsuda and Izawa, 2008;Shimooka et al, 2008]. Yet, just as there are few records of predation of spider monkeys, there are also relatively few reports of their reactions to attempted predation [Matsuda and Izawa, 2008;Mourthé, 2011], despite the potentially disruptive effect that antipredator behaviours might have on their time budgets [Maestripieri, 1993;Peres, 1993;Di Fiore, 2002].…”

Section: Atelesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crying Tapir: The Functionality of Errors and Accuracy in Predator Recognition in Two Neotropical High-Canopy Primates

Mourthé¹,

Barnett²

2015

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predation is often considered to be a prime driver in primate evolution, but, as predation is rarely observed in nature, little is known of primate antipredator responses. Time-limited primates should be highly discerning when responding to predators, since time spent in vigilance and avoidance behaviour may supplant other activities. We present data from two independent studies describing and quantifying the frequency, nature and duration of predator-linked behaviours in 2 high-canopy primates, Ateles belzebuth and Cacajao ouakary. We introduce the concept of ‘pseudopredators' (harmless species whose appearance is sufficiently similar to that of predators to elicit antipredator responses) and predict that changes in behaviour should increase with risk posed by a perceived predator. We studied primate group encounters with non-primate vertebrates across 14 (Ateles) and 19 (Cacajao) months in 2 undisturbed Amazonian forests. Although preliminary, data on both primates revealed that they distinguished the potential predation capacities of other species, as predicted. They appeared to differentiate predators from non-predators and distinguished when potential predators were not an immediate threat, although they reacted erroneously to pseudopredators, on average in about 20% of the responses given toward other vertebrates. Reacting to pseudopredators would be interesting since, in predation, one error can be fatal to the prey.

show abstract

Demography and group composition ofAteles

Cited by 64 publications

References 24 publications

How Survey Design Affects Monkey Counts: A Case Study on Individually Recognized Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi)

How Survey Design Affects Monkey Counts: A Case Study on Individually Recognized Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi)

Effects of Fragment and Vegetation Structure on the Population Abundance of Ateles hybridus, Alouatta seniculus and Cebus albifrons in Magdalena Valley, Colombia

Crying Tapir: The Functionality of Errors and Accuracy in Predator Recognition in Two Neotropical High-Canopy Primates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About