Advertisement

International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 243–256 | Cite as

The value of figs to chimpanzees

  • R. W. Wrangham
  • N. L. Conklin
  • G. Etot
  • J. Obua
  • K. D. Hunt
  • M. D. Hauser
  • A. P. Clark
Article

Abstract

Nine Ugandan figs have consistent differences in nutrient concentration between the pulp and seed fractions. Pulp has more water-soluble carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, calories, and ash, while the seed fraction has more condensed tannins, lipids, and fiber. Because species differ, nutrient concentration in pulp could not be predicted from analysis of whole figs. Chimpanzees in Kibale Forest relied heavily on figs throughout 29 months, feeding relatively intensely at large trees. Fig size varied between species, between individuals of the same species, and between fruiting cycles of the same tree. Larger figs had higher water concentrations but still led to higher rates of nutrient intake per minute for chimpanzees, monkeys, and hornbills. Chimpanzees ate more than 40 cal/min, excluding calories derived from insoluble fiber, when harvesting large figs.

Key Words

figs chimpanzees intake rates nutrient composition frugivore assemblages 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, R. W., Chesson, A., and Monro, J. (1978). Plant cell wall fractionation and structural analysis.Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 31: s77-s81.Google Scholar
  2. Bate-Smith, E. C. (1975). Phytochemistry of proanthocyanidins.Phytochemistry 14: 1107–1113.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, C. C. (1989). Classification and distribution ofFicus.Experientia 45: 605–611.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, C. C., and Hijman, M. E. E. (1989).Flora of Tropical East Africa: Moraceae, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Bronstein, J. L., and Hoffmann, K. (1987). Spatial and temporal variation in frugivory at a neotropical fig,Ficus pertusa.Oikos 49: 261–268.Google Scholar
  6. Eastwood, M. A., Brydon, W. G., and Anderson, D. M. W. (1986). The effect of the polysaccharids composition and structure of dietary fibers on cecal fermentation and fecal excretion.Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 44: 51–55.Google Scholar
  7. Ghiglieri, M. (1984).The Chimpanzees of Kibale Forest, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Goering, H. K., and Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analysis.Agricultural Handbook No. 379, ARS, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Isabirye-Basuta, G. (1989). Feeding ecology of chimpanzees in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In Heltne, P. G., and Marquadt, L. A. (eds.),Understanding Chimpanzees, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 116–127.Google Scholar
  10. Janzen, D. H. (1979). How to be a fig.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 13–51.Google Scholar
  11. Lambert, F. (1989). Fig-eating by birds in a Malaysian lowland rain forest.J. Trop. Ecol. 5: 401–412.Google Scholar
  12. Leighton, D. R. (1986). Gibbons: Territoriality and monogamy. In Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W., and Struhsaker, T. T. (eds.),Primate Societies, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 135–145.Google Scholar
  13. Leighton, M. (1993). Modeling dietary selectivity by Bornean orangutans: Evidence for integration of multiple criteria in fruit selection.Int. J. Primatol. 14: 257–313.Google Scholar
  14. Malenky, R. (1990).Ecological Factors Affecting Food Choice and Social Organization in Pan paniscus, Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Stony Brook, N.Y.Google Scholar
  15. McKey, D. (1989). Population biology of figs: Applications for conservation.Experientia 45: 661–673.Google Scholar
  16. Milton, K., and Demment, M. W. (1988). Digestion and passage kinetics of chimpanzees fed high and low fiber diets and comparison with human data.J. Nutr. 118: 1082–1088.Google Scholar
  17. Mole, S., and Waterman, P. G. (1987). A critical analysis of techniques for measuring tannins in ecological studies. I. Techniques for chemically defining tannins.Oecologia 72: 137–147.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council (1989).Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th ed., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. Pierce, W. C., and Haenisch, E. L. (1947).Quantitative Analysis, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  20. Robertson, J. B., and Van Soest, P. J. (1980). The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In James, W. P. T., and Theander, O. (eds.),The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Food, Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel, pp. 123–158.Google Scholar
  21. Skorupa, J. P. (1988).The Effects of Selective Timber Harvesting on Rain Forest Primates in Kibale Forest, Uganda, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  22. Strickland, J. D. H., and Parsons, T. R. (1972).A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis, Fisheries Board of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  23. Struhsaker, T. T., and Leland, L. (1979). Socioecology of five sympatric monkey species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In Rosenblatt, J. S., Hinde, R. A., Beer, C., and Busnel, M. C. (eds.),Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 159–228.Google Scholar
  24. Sugardjito, J., te Boekhorst, I. J. A., and van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1987). Ecological constraints on the grouping of wild orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in the Gunung Leuser National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia.Int. J. Primatol. 8: p17–41.Google Scholar
  25. Terborgh, J. (1983).Five New World Primates, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  26. Vellayan, S. (1981).Chemical Composition and Digestibility of Natural and Domestic Food of the Lar Gibbon (Hylobates lar) in Malaysia, M.Sc. thesis, University Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Wrangham
    • 1
  • N. L. Conklin
    • 1
  • G. Etot
    • 2
  • J. Obua
    • 2
  • K. D. Hunt
    • 3
  • M. D. Hauser
    • 1
  • A. P. Clark
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyHarvard UniversityCambridge
  2. 2.Makerere University Biological Field Station, Department of ZoologyMakerere UniversityUganda
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyIndiana UniversityBloomington
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations