Nests, tree holes, and the evolution of primate life histories

Abstract

In contrast to the majority of primates, many prosimians, some New World monkeys, and the great apes rest in tree holes or self‐constructed nests during their inactive periods. The goal of this comparative study was to examine possible functions of this interspecific variation. Information on resting behavior, maternal behavior, and basic life‐history traits was gleaned from the literature and mapped onto a phylogenetic tree of primates for various comparative tests. Parsimony‐based reconstructions revealed that only the use of nests or tree holes as shelters for young infants can be unequivocally reconstructed for various higher taxa, suggesting that it is functionally different from the use of shelters by adults (who may be accompanied by infants). Further reconstructions revealed that the ancestral primate was most likely nocturnal and solitary and produced a single infant that was initially left in a shelter and later carried orally to a parking place in the vegetation—a combination of traits exhibited by many living galagos. Evolutionary losses of the use of nests were concentrated among diurnal and nonsolitary taxa and weakly associated with evolutionary increases in body size. Thus, protective functions of nests or tree holes used by prosimians are either secondary or there are alternative ways of obtaining protection. Because the evolution of larger litters was significantly associated with the presence of shelters, the presence of relatively altricial young among prosimians best explains the use of nests and tree holes, which are in most but not all cases also used by adults. These shelters therefore play an integral part in the life‐history strategies of primitive primates and their ancestors and evolved secondarily among anthropoids for other purposes. Am. J. Primatol. 46:7–33, 1998. © 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

When Dads Help: Male Behavioral Care During Primate Infant Development

“…When females "park" their infants (Kappeler 1998 ) , like in ruffed lemurs ( Varecia variegata , Morland 1990 ) , slender loris ( Loris lydekkerianus , Nekaris 2003 ) , or spectral tarsiers ( Tarsius spectrum , Gursky 2000 ) , they save energy compared to females in anthropoid primates, where infants are carried much more frequently. This energy-saving behavior by the mothers might render strong male involvement unnecessary.…”

Females go where the food is: does the socio-ecological model explain variation in social organisation of solitary foragers?

“…In particular, for small mammals that face high predation risks and/or thermoregulatory expenses in temporally cold environments, shelter and nesting sites are expected to be an important resource as well (Kappeler 1998;Schmid 1998). M. murinus females prefer tree holes over other resting sites, and stable sleeping groups occupy on average three to seven holes (Radespiel et al 1998;Schmid 1998).…”

Long‐term patterns of sleeping site use in wild saddleback (Saguinus fuscicollis) and mustached tamarins (S. mystax): Effects of foraging, thermoregulation, predation, and resource defense constraints

“…Predation may not be the only factor influencing the use of sleeping sites, body size, social organisation, the need for thermoregulation, protection from adverse weather and reproductive state may all affect the choice of sites (Chivers 1974;Dawson 1979;Aquino & Encarnación 1986;Kappeler 1998;Anderson 2000). Although tree holes may provide thermoregulatory benefits compared to other types of primate sleeping site, size constraints may restrict their use to smaller taxa.…”

“…Although tree holes may provide thermoregulatory benefits compared to other types of primate sleeping site, size constraints may restrict their use to smaller taxa. Indeed whilst noting exceptions, Kappeler (1998) predicts that tree holes will be used more frequently by smaller taxa. Mixed-species troops of tamarins allow this to be tested without the need to control for differences in habitat variables.…”