Advertisement

Primates

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 401–411 | Cite as

Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations

  • Irwin S. Bernstein
  • Peter Balcaen
  • Lawrence Dresdale
  • Harold Gouzoules
  • Michael Kavanagh
  • Thomas Patterson
  • Patricia Neyman-Warner
Article

Abstract

A population survey of nonhuman primates in an area of northern Colombia was conducted using repeated systematic census techniques as well as exploratory transects. Both remnant forest patches and more extensive forests were examined for comparison. WhereasLagothrix andAteles were most numerous in extensive forests,Lagothrix was virtually absent in remnant forests.Cebus, Alouatta andSaguinus persist in remnant forests, and the last may even find second growth a favorable habitat. These results are in good agreement with independent studies in a second area in the South.

Keywords

Differential Effect Animal Ecology Independent Study Nonhuman Primate Population Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann, S. A., 1959. Field observations on a Howling monkey society.J. Mammal., 40: 317–330.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, I. S., 1964. A field study of the activities of Howler monkeys.Ani. Behav., 12: 84–91.Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, C. R., 1934. A field study of the behavior and social relations of Howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata).Comp. Psychol. Monog., 10(2): 1–132.Google Scholar
  4. ————, 1935. Behavior of red Spider monkeys in Panama (Ateles geoffroyii).J. Mammal., 16: 171–180.Google Scholar
  5. Chivers, D. J., 1969. On the daily behavior and spacing of Howling monkey groups.Folia Primat., 10: 48–102.Google Scholar
  6. Collias, N. &C. Southwick, 1952. A field study of population density and social organization in Howling monkeys.Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc., 96: 143–156.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, J. F. &R. E. Kuehn, 1966. The behavior ofAteles geoffroyii and related species.Smithson. Misc. Coll., 151(8): 1–63.Google Scholar
  8. ————,N. A. Mockenhirn, &R. Rudran, 1972. The relation between Ecology and social structure in primates.Science, 176: 863–874.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, L. L. &D. J. Klein, 1973. Observations on two types of neotropical primate intertaxa associations.Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 38: 649–653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. ----, & ----, (in press). Neotropical primates: aspects of habitat usage, population density, and regional distribution in La Macarena, Colombia.National Acad. of Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. ----, & ----, 1973. Social and ecological contrasts between four taxa of neotropical primates (Ateles belzebuth, Alouatta seniculus, Saimiri sciureus, Cebus apella). Presented atIX Int. Congr. Anthrop. Ethnol. Sci. Sept. 1973, Chicago, (Paper).Google Scholar
  12. Neville M. K. 1972a. The population structure of red Howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus) in Trinidad and Venezuela.Folia Primat., 17: 56–86.Google Scholar
  13. ————, 1972b. Social relations within troops of red Howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus).Folia Primat., 18: 47–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irwin S. Bernstein
    • 1
  • Peter Balcaen
    • 1
  • Lawrence Dresdale
    • 1
  • Harold Gouzoules
    • 1
  • Michael Kavanagh
    • 1
  • Thomas Patterson
    • 1
  • Patricia Neyman-Warner
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaUSA
  2. 2.United States Peace Corps.USA

Personalised recommendations