Advertisement

Primates

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 373–382 | Cite as

Estimating primate densities using home range and line transect methods: A comparative test with the black colobus monkeyColobus satanas

  • David Brugiere
  • Marie-Claire Fleury
Article

Abstract

The line transect method is one of the main methods used to estimate primate densities. Several protocols have been proposed to analyze the data recorded under this method but none of them have been widely accepted since there is a considerable controversy about their respective accuracy. In this study, densities of the black colobus monkeyColobus satanas calculated using eight different protocols were compared with the actual density given by the home range method. Rates of polyspecific associations were also compared. The two most accurate estimates of group density (under- or overestimation <10%) were yielded by the protocol that used the maximum transect-to-animal distance and by that of using a fixed distance of 100 m. These protocols, however, underestimated individual density because counts performed from transects underestimated by 23% the average group size. The six other protocols overestimated group density by 20–195%. Factors that could explain these overestimation were discussed. Because histogram of sighting frequency showed several classes of distances with no records and because groups have been detected as far as 160 m, we suggested that the uneven topography of the study site increased the variability of the sighting distances. Combined with a relatively low number of sightings (n=23), this did not allow to identify a sharp detection distance. Rates of polyspecific association found with the two methods were similar. We recommend to investigate the influence of the topography for bias in density estimates when using the line transect method.

Key Words

Polyspecific associations Primate density Census methods Line transect Home range 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brockelman, W. Y.;Ali, R. 1987. Methods of surveying and sampling forest primates populations. In:Primate Conservation in the Tropical Rain Forest,Marsh,C. W.;Mittermeier,R. A. (eds.) Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 23–62.Google Scholar
  2. Brugiere, D. 1998a. Facteurs de variation des densités et des biomasses de primates en milieu tropical forestier: l'exemple des communautés de Cercopithecidae d'Afrique Centrale. Thèse de Diplôme Doctoral, Université de Rennes I, France.Google Scholar
  3. Brugiere, D. 1998b. Population size of the black colobus monkeyColobus satanas and the impact of logging in the Lopé Reserve, central Gabon.Biol. Conserv., 86: 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckland, S. T.;Anderson, D. R.;Burnham, K. P.;Laake, J. L. 1993.Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Population. Chapman & Hill, London.Google Scholar
  5. Burnham, K. P.;Anderson, D. R.;Laake, J. L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations,Wild. Monogr., 72: 1–202.Google Scholar
  6. Butynski, T. M. 1990. Comparative ecology of blue monkeysCercopithecus mitis in high and low density subpopulations.Ecol. Monogr., 60: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defler, R. T.;Pintor, D. 1985. Censusing primates by transect in a forest of known primate density.Int. J. Primatol., 6: 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenberg, J. F.;Thorington, R. W. 1973. A preliminary analysis of a neotropical mammal fauna.Biotrop., 5: 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleury, M. C. 1999. Ecologie et organisation sociale du Colobe satanColobus satanas. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Rennes I, France.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, J. E. 1993. Comparisons of estimated densities computed forSaguinus fuscicollis andSaguinus labiatus using line transect sampling.Primates Report, 37: 19–29.Google Scholar
  11. Gautier-Hion, A. 1988. Polyspecific associations among forest guenons: ecological, behavioural and evolutionary aspects. In:A Primate Radiation: Evolutionary Biology of the African Guenons.Gautier-Hion, A.;Bourliere, F.;Gautier, J.-P.;Kingdon, J. (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, London, pp. 452–476.Google Scholar
  12. Gautier-Hion, A.;Gautier, J.-P.;Moungazi, A. 1997. Do black colobus in mixed-species groups benefit from increased foraging strategy?C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 320: 67–71.Google Scholar
  13. Gesnot, K. 1994.Inventaire Forestier dans la Forét des Abeilles, Mémoire de fin d'études. Univ. Libre de Bruxelles, BelgiqueGoogle Scholar
  14. Glander, K.;Tapia, J.;Fachin, A. 1984. The impact of cropping on wild population ofSaguinus mystax andSaguinus fuscicollis in Peru.Amer. J. Primatol. 7: 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glenn, M. E. 1998. Population density ofCercopithecus mona on the carribean island of Grenada.Folia Primatol., 69: 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, K. M. 1978. Primate censusing in Northern Columbia: a comparision of two techniques.Primates, 19: 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison, M. J. S. 1986. Feeding ecology of black colobusColobus satanas in central Gabon. In:Primate Ecology and Conservation,Else,J. G.;Lee P. C. (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 31–37.Google Scholar
  18. Harrison, M. J. S.;Hladik, C. M. 1986. Un primate granivore: le colobe noir dans la forêt du Gabon. Potentialité d'évolution du comportement alimentaire.Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie), 41: 281–298.Google Scholar
  19. Laake, J. L.;Buckland, S. T.;Anderson, D. R.;Burnham, K. P. 1994.Distance User's Guide Vol.3 Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins.Google Scholar
  20. McGraw, S. 1994. Census, habitat preference and polyspecific association of six monkeys in the Lomako forest, Zaïre.Amer. J. Primatol., 34: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKey, D. B.;Gartlan, J. S.;Waterman, P. G.;Choo, G. M. 1981. Food selection by black colobus monkeys (Colobus satanas) in relation to plant chemistry.Biol. J. Linnean Soc., 16: 115–146.Google Scholar
  22. McKey, D. B.;Waterman, P. G. 1982. Ranging behaviour of a group of black colobus (Colobus satanas) in the Douala-Edea reserve, Cameroon.Folia Primatol., 39: 264–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitani, M.;Yamagiwa, J.;Oko, R. A.;Moutsambote, J.-M.;Yumoto, T.;Maruhashi, T. 1993. Approaches in density estimates and reconstruction of social groups in a western lowland gorilla population in the Ndoki forest, northern Congo.Tropics, 2: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peres, C. 1999. General guidelines for standardizing line transect surveys of tropical forest primates.Neotrop. Primates, 7: 11–16.Google Scholar
  25. Plumptre, A. J.;Reynolds, V. 1994. The effect of selective logging on the primate populations in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda,J. Applied Ecol., 31: 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosembaum, B.;O'Brien, T. G.;Kinnaird, M.;Supriatna, J. 1998. Population densities of Sulawesi crested black macaques on Bacan and Sulawesi: effects of habitat disturbances and hunting.Amer. J. Primatol., 44: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simmen, B.;Julliot, C.;Bayart, F., Pages, E. 1998. Densités de primates en forêt guyanaise: Test d'une méthode d'estimation par transect.C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 321: 699–704.Google Scholar
  28. Skinner, C. A. 1985. A field study of Geoffroy's tamarinSaguinus geoffroyi in Panama.Amer. J. Primatol. 9: 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Struhsaker, T. T. 1981. Census methods for estimating densities. In:Techniques for the Study of Primate Population Ecology,Subcommittee on Conservation of Natural Populations ed., National Academy Press, Washington, pp. 36–80.Google Scholar
  30. Struhsaker, T. T. 1997.Ecology of an African Rain Forest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflict Between Conservation and Exploitation. Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  31. White, L. T. J. 1994. Blomass of rain forest mammals in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon.J. Anim. Ecol., 63: 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whitesides, G. H.;Oates, J. F.;Green, S. M.;Kluberdanz, R. P. 1988. Estimating primate densities from transects in a West African rain forest: a comparision of techniques.J. Anim. Ecol., 57: 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson, D. E.;Reeder, D. M. 1993.Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Smithsonian Instit. Press, Washington D.C..Google Scholar
  34. Wolfheim, J. H. 1983.Primates of the World: Distribution, Abundance and Conservation. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Brugiere
    • 1
  • Marie-Claire Fleury
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR 6552 “Ethologie, Evolution and Ecologie,”Université de Rennes I-CNRS, Station BiologiquePaimpontFrance

Personalised recommendations