Spider Monkeys in Human-Modified Landscapes

Abstract

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).

Drivers of the spatial scale that best predict primate responses to landscape structure

“…For instance, Asensio et al (2009) found that two groups of Alouatta palliata supplement their diet with flowers and fruits from Albizia purpusii (Fabaceae) and Ficus lundelii (Moraceae) located in live fences and isolated trees. Arroyo-Rodríguez et al (2017) also found that Ateles geoffroyi feed from isolated trees of 22 species, and from 8 tree species in vegetation corridors. Other studies of primates have also observed events of diet supplementation in vegetation corridors, live fences, and isolated trees dispersed in the matrix (Stoner 1996, Pozo-Montuy and Serio-Silva 2007, Asensio et al 2009, Pozo-Montuy et al 2011, Arroyo-Rodríguez et al 2017.…”

“…Arroyo-Rodríguez et al (2017) also found that Ateles geoffroyi feed from isolated trees of 22 species, and from 8 tree species in vegetation corridors. Other studies of primates have also observed events of diet supplementation in vegetation corridors, live fences, and isolated trees dispersed in the matrix (Stoner 1996, Pozo-Montuy and Serio-Silva 2007, Asensio et al 2009, Pozo-Montuy et al 2011, Arroyo-Rodríguez et al 2017. Therefore, landscape supplementation dynamics may contribute to decrease SE.…”

“…In many cases, neighboring connectors may become part of the home range of primates (reviewed by Arroyo-Rodríguez and Mandujano 2009), thus allowing primates to reduce their dispersal movements in the landscape, and consequently SE (Miguet et al 2016). Connectors' elements can actually allow primate populations to persist in small and low quality fragments, especially when they are composed of food plant species (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al 2017). For instance, Asensio et al (2009) found that two groups of Alouatta palliata supplement their diet with flowers and fruits from Albizia purpusii (Fabaceae) and Ficus lundelii (Moraceae) located in live fences and isolated trees.…”

“…The remaining tropical landscapes are highly heterogeneous, as they show different composition and spatial configuration (Melo et al 2013). Understanding the effect of these two components of landscape structure on biodiversity is critical to inform management and conservation plans (Fahrig et al 2011, Tscharntke et al 2012, Arroyo-Rodríguez et al 2017). However, the spatial extent (landscape size) that should be considered to accurately assess the response of species to landscape changes is poorly known Fahrig 2015, Miguet et al 2016).…”

Fragment shape and size, landscape permeability and fragmentation level as predictors of primate occupancy in a region of Brazilian Cerrado

“…At the patch scale, habitat patches may become progressively smaller and more isolated, while at a landscape scale, they may disappear altogether (Fahrig, 2003). The occupation of these forest patches by animal populations will depend on the dynamics of the exploitation of the resources available in the patches themselves and the surrounding matrix (Santos, Chiarello, Ribeiro, Ribeiro, & Paglia, 2016), which will influence the resilience of the populations or their susceptibility to extinction (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al, 2017;Borges-Matos, Aragón, Silva, Fortin, & Magnusson, 2016;Brady, McAlpine, Possingham, Miller, & Baxter, 2011). Ultimately, the socioecology of the species may also influence patch occupation patterns.…”