Use of cultivated foods and matrix habitat by Bale monkeys in forest fragments: Assessing local human attitudes and perceptions

Abstract

Primates inhabiting human-modified landscapes often exploit matrix habitat to supplement their diet with cultivated foods, at times resulting in economic losses and conflict with local people. Understanding human-nonhuman primate interactions and the attitudes and perceptions of local people towards crop feeding species are crucial to designing effective species-based management plans. Over a 12-month period, we used scan sampling to study the consumption of cultivated foods and matrix use patterns by two habituated groups of Bale monkeys (Chlorocebus djamdjamensis), Ethiopian-endemic bamboo specialists, in two forest fragments (Kokosa and Afursa) set amidst human settlements and farmland in the southern Ethiopian Highlands. Further, we conducted interviews with local people to document their attitudes and perceptions towards Bale monkeys at the two sites. We found that Bale monkeys at Kokosa, a more degraded habitat by most measures, consumed significantly more cultivated foods than their counterparts at Afursa. Moreover, Bale monkeys at Kokosa spent significantly more time in the matrix than in the forest habitat, while monkeys at Afursa spent significantly less time in the matrix than in the forest habitat. Not surprisingly, local people displayed a more negative attitude towards monkeys inhabiting Kokosa than those inhabiting Afursa.The differences in Bale monkey cultivated food consumption and matrix use patterns-as well as in local people's attitudes and perceptions towards Bale monkeys-between Kokosa and Afursa are probably associated with differences in habitat structure, degree of habitat alteration, and land-use practices between the sites. We conclude that to ensure long-term coexistence between Bale monkeys and local people in humanmodified landscapes, it is vital to incorporate nearby matrix habitats into management plans and to work closely with local communities to develop effective nonlethal crop protection strategies, thereby reducing the likelihood of negative interactions between Bale monkeys and humans. K E Y W O R D S behavioral flexibility, Chlorocebus djamdjamensis, crop feeding, Ethiopian Highlands, ethnoprimatology, habitat fragmentation ---

Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence: a case study from Senkele Swayne's Hartebeest Sanctuary in Ethiopia

“…Understanding the nature and extent of human–wildlife conflict is known to be an important precondition for both effective wildlife management and the spatiotemporal coexistence of wildlife and humans (Mekonnen et al 2019). In particular, to develop and implement management plans to mitigate human–wildlife conflict, detailed studies of crop raiding by herbivores and/or livestock predation by carnivores must be carried out, often involving systemic and intensive interviews with local informants (Treves et al 2006, Inskip and Zimmermann 2009, Seoraj‐Pillai and Pillay 2016).…”

Sleeping Site and Tree Selection by Bale Monkeys (Chlorocebus djamdjamensis) at Kokosa Forest Fragment in Southern Ethiopia

“…The accessibility of food influences sleeping site selection in primates living in degraded and fragmented forests due to the lower availability and patchiness of food resources (e.g., northern pigtailed macaques [Macaca leonina: Wang et al, 2011]). Indeed, Bale monkeys avoid use of cultivated land for sleeping primarily because of intense negative human-Bale monkey interaction in response to their crop feeding behavior (Mekonnen et al, 2020). Bale monkeys depend on bamboo and are most likely to select sleeping sites near to or inside mixed-bamboo patches to minimize travel costs, supporting the food access hypothesis (Mekonnen et al, 2017).…”

“…In addition, the selection of sleeping sites may be affected by habitat disturbance (Anderson, 2000;Gazagne et al, 2020;Qihai et al, 2009). For example, habitat alteration affects forest-dwelling primates in many ways, including reducing the availability and quality of tall and large trees suitable for sleeping, reducing canopy connectivity, decreasing the availability and quality of food resources, and increasing vulnerability to predators, hunting pressure, and exposure to parasite infections (Gazagne et al, 2020;Gonzalez-Zamora et al, 2012;Kiene et al, 2021;Mekonnen et al, 2017Mekonnen et al, , 2020. The aforementioned hypotheses are not mutually exclusive (Franklin et al, 2007;Li et al, 2013) and it is important to consider the relative contribution of each to a species' behavior.…”

“…The main predators of Bale monkeys in forest fragments are domestic dogs and humans, while other potential predators include spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), African wolves (Canis lupaster), and birds of prey (e.g., tawny eagles [Aquila rapax], martial eagles [Polemaetus bellicosus], augur buzzards [Buteo augur]) (Mekonnen et al, 2020;Mekonnen, unpubl. data).…”

Feeding ecology and diet of the southern geladas (Theropithecus gelada obscurus) in human‐modified landscape, Wollo, Ethiopia

“…Although the number of protected areas in many countries has increased over the recent decades, reserves are insufficient to harbor all primate populations (Estrada et al., 2012 ). Thus, many primate species live in human‐dominated landscapes outside protected areas by sharing resources with the local people (Bryson‐Morrison et al., 2017 ; Hockings & McLennan, 2012 ; Isabirye‐Basuta & Lwanga, 2008 ; Lee, 2010 ; Mekonnen et al., 2020 ; Strum, 2010 ). Agricultural expansion and land degradation are the main threats of many primate species inhabiting unprotected landscapes across East Africa (Chapman & Peres, 2001 ; Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000 ; Fedigan & Jack, 2001 ; Kifle & Bekele, 2020a , 2020b ).…”