Primates

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 336–341 | Cite as

Cheek pouch use in relation to interspecific competition and predator risk for three guenon monkeys (Cercopithecus spp.)

Original Article

Abstract

Forest guenons (Cercopithecus spp.) are often found in polyspecific associations that may decrease predator risk while increasing interspecific competition for food. Cheek pouch use may mitigate interspecific competition and predator risk by reducing the time spent in areas of high competition/predator risk. I investigated these ideas in three forest guenons: Campbell’s monkey (Cercopithecus campbelli), spot-nosed monkey (C. petaurista), and Diana monkey (C. diana). I present 13 months of scan sample data from Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire, including 3,675, 3,330, and 5,689 records of cheek pouch distention, to quantify cheek pouch use, for Campbell’s, spot-nosed, and Diana monkeys, respectively. Cheek pouches are often used to hold fruit, so I first predicted that the most frugivorous species, Diana monkeys, would have the most cheek pouch distension. Spot-nosed monkeys ate the least amount of fruit over the study period and had the least distended cheek pouches, suggesting the importance of frugivory in relation to cheek pouch distension for this species. This was not a sufficient explanation for Campbell’s monkeys; Campbell’s ate fruit less than Diana monkeys, but had more distended cheek pouches, suggesting that cheek pouch use was not simply a reflection of high frugivory. From the interspecific competition hypothesis, I predicted that Campbell’s monkeys would have more distended cheek pouches than Diana and spot-nosed monkeys, and more distended cheek pouches when associated with Diana because Campbell’s monkeys have the highest potential for interspecific competition with dominant Diana monkeys. From the predator risk hypothesis, I predicted that Campbell’s would have more distended cheek pouches when not associated with highly vigilant Diana monkeys. Campbell’s monkeys had the most distended cheek pouches overall, but had more distended cheek pouches when not in association with Diana, suggesting the greater importance of predator risk rather than interspecific competition in Campbell’s cheek pouch use.

Keywords

Cercopithecus Cheek pouches Guenons Interspecific competition Predator risk 

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boesch C, Boesch H (1989) Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in the Taï National Park. Am J Phys Anthropol 78:547–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boesch C, Boesch-Achermann H (2000) The Chimpanzees of the Taï Forest behavioural ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Boinski S, Treves A, Chapman CA (2000) A critical evaluation of the influence of predators on primates: effects on group travel. In: Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 43–72Google Scholar
  5. Bshary R (2001) Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus diana, adjust their anti-predator response behaviour to human hunting strategies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bshary R, Noë R (1997) Anti-predation behavior of red colobus monkeys in the presence of chimpanzees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buzzard PJ (2004) Interspecific competition among Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista, and C. diana at Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire. PhD Thesis Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Buzzard PJ (2006) Ecological partitioning in three guenons of the Taï Forest: Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista and C. diana. Int J Primatol (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Buzzard PJ, Eckardt W (2006) Social systems of the Taï guenons. In: Noë R, McGraw WS, Zuberbühler K (eds) Monkeys of the Taï Forest: an African primate community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Chadwick-Jones JK (1989) Presenting and mounting in non-human primates: theoretical developments. J Soc Biol Stress 12:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cords M (2000) Mixed species association and group movement. In: Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 73–99Google Scholar
  12. Eckardt W, Zuberbühler K (2004) Cooperation and competition in forest monkeys. Behav Ecol 15:400–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes VJ, Henzi SP, Freedman L, Gaynor D (1992) The differential use of cheek pouches in a troop of Papio ursinus. Primates 33:477–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korstjens AH (2001) The mob, the secret sorority, and the phantoms: an analysis of the socio-ecological strategies of the three colobines of Taï. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambert JE (2005) Competition, predation, and the evolutionary significance of the cercopithecine cheek pouch: the case of Cercopithecus and Lophocebus. Am J Phys Anthropol 126:183–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehner PN (1996) Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. McGraw WS (1996) Positional behavior and habitat use of six monkeys in the Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray PF (1975) The role of cheek pouches in cercopithecine monkey adaptive strategy. In: Tuttle RH (ed) Primate functional morphology and evolution. Moulton, Paris, pp 151–194Google Scholar
  19. Napier PH (1981) Catalogue of primates in the British Museum (Natural History) and elsewhere in the British Isles, Part 2: Family Cercopithecidae, Subfamily Cercopithecinae. British Museum (Natural History), LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Noë R, Bshary R (1997) The formation of red colobus-diana monkey associations under predation pressure from chimpanzees. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oates JF, Whitesides GH, Davies AG, Waterman PG, Green SM, Dasilva GL, Mole S (1990) Determinants of variation in tropical forest primate biomass: new evidence from West Africa. Ecology 71:328–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richard AF (1985) Primates in nature. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (1987) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Srivastava A, Borries C, Sommer V (1991) Homosexual mounting in free-ranging female Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Arch Sex Behav 20:487–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stoorvogel JJ (1993) Gross inputs and outputs of nutrients in disturbed Forest, Taï Area Côte d’Ivoire. Veenman Drukkers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  27. Vander Wall SB, Longland WS, Pyare S, Veech JA (1998) Cheek pouch capacities and loading rates of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 113:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolters S, Zuberbühler K (2003) Mixed-species associations of Diana and Campbell’s monkeys: the costs and benefits of a forest phenomenon. Behaviour 140:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre and Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anthropology DepartmentColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP)New YorkUSA
  3. 3.AltamontUSA

Personalised recommendations