Primates

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 307–314 | Cite as

Polyspecific associations of Cercopithecus campbelli and C. petaurista with C. diana: what are the costs and benefits?

Original Article

Abstract

Polyspecific associations (PSA) are common in many African primate communities, including the diurnal primates at Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire. In this paper I use data on the PSA of two forest guenons, Campbell’s (Cercopithecus campbelli) and lesser spot-nosed monkeys (C. petaurista), with Diana monkeys (C. diana) and other primates to clarify interspecific relationships during 17 months including a 3-month low-fruit period. I analyzed association in relation to fruit availability and measured forest strata use for C. campbelli and C. petaurista when alone and in associations with and without C. diana. I also measured predator risk and reactions to potential predators. C. campbelli and C. petaurista had high association rates with C. diana monkeys, and fruit availability did not influence association rates. C. campbelli and C. petaurista used higher strata when in association with C. diana than when alone, but they used even higher strata when associated with other primates without C. diana. This suggested that C. diana competitively exclude C. campbelli and C. petaurista from higher strata. There were relatively large numbers of potential predators, and C. diana were usually the first callers to threatening stimuli, suggesting that antipredator benefits of association with C. diana outweighed the competitive costs. C. campbelli spent more time in association with C. diana than C. petaurista did and appeared to be more reliant on C. diana for antipredator benefits. C. petaurista were less reliant on C. diana because of a cryptic strategy and may have associated less in some months because of high chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) presence.

Keywords

Mixed-species associations Forest guenons Cercopithecus campbelli Cercopithecus petaurista Cercopithecus diana 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the minister of the environment and the forest, the minister of scientific research, the director of the Center for Ecological Research at Taï and the PACPNT of Côte d’Ivoire for giving me permission to work at Taï National Park. I would also like to thank the directors of the Taï Monkey Project (TMP), Ronald Noë, Klaus Zuberbühler, Scott McGraw, and Johannes Refisch for the opportunity to study with the TMP. I would like to thank my advisor, Marina Cords, members of my dissertation committee (John Oates, Don Melnick, Fred Koontz, and Cliff Jolly), Peter Waser, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments towards the development of this manuscript. The fieldwork was possible through a dissertation improvement grant from Leakey Foundation.

References

  1. Alatalo RV (1981) Interspecific competition in tits Parus spp. and the goldcrest Regulus regulus: foraging shifts in multi-species flocks. Oikos 37:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaral PP, Ragusa-Netto J (2008) Bird mixed-flocks and nuclear species in a tecoma savannah in the Pantanal. Braz J Biol 68:511–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boesch C (1994) Chimpanzees–red colobus: a predator-prey system. Anim Behav 47:1135–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boesch C, Boesch H (1989) Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in the Taï National Park. Am J Phys Anthropol 78:547–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boesch C, Boesch-Achermann H (2000) The chimpanzees of the Taï Forest behavioural ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bshary R (2001) Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus diana, adjust their anti-predator response behaviour to human hunting strategies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bshary R, Noë R (1997a) Red colobus and Diana monkeys provide mutual protection against predators. Anim Behav 54:1461–1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bshary R, Noë R (1997b) Anti-predation behavior of red colobus monkeys in the presence of chimpanzees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buzzard PJ (2004) Interspecific competition among Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista, and C. diana at Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Buzzard PJ (2006a) Ecological partitioning of Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista, and C. diana in the Taï Forest. Int J Primatol 27:529–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buzzard PJ (2006b) Ranging patterns in relation to seasonality and frugivory among Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista, and C. diana in the Taï Forest. Int J Primatol 27:559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman CA, Chapman LJ (2000) Inter-demic variation in mixed-species association patterns: common diurnal primates of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:1229–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cords M (1987) Mixed species associations of Cercopithecus monkeys in the Kakamega Forest. Univ Calif Publ Zool 117:1–109Google Scholar
  16. Cords M (1990) Mixed-species associations of East African guenons: general patterns or specific examples? Am J Primatol 21:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Eckardt W, Zuberbühler K (2004) Cooperation and competition in two forest monkeys. Behav Ecol 15:400–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galat G, Galat-Luong A (1985) La communauté de primates diurnes de la forêt de Taï, Côte d’Ivoire. Rev Ecol (Terre Vie) 40:3–32Google Scholar
  20. Gautier-Hion A (1988) Polyspecific associations among forest guenons: ecological, behavioral and evolutionary aspects. In: Gautier-Hion A, Bourlière F, Gautier J-P, Kingdon J (eds) A primate radiation: evolutionary biology of the African guenons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 452–475Google Scholar
  21. Gautier-Hion A, Quris R, Gautier J-P (1983) Monospecific vs. polyspecific life: a comparative study of foraging and antipredatory tactics in a community of Cercopithecus monkeys. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenberg R (2000) Birds of many feathers: the formation and structure of mixed-species flocks of forest birds. In: Boinski S, Garber P (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 521–558Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 7:295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holenweg A-K, Noë R, Schabel M (1996) Waser’s gas model applied to associations between Red Colobus and Diana Monkeys in the Taï National Park, Ivory Coast. Folia Primatol 67:113–124Google Scholar
  25. Höner OP, Leymann L, Noë R (1997) Dyadic associations of red colobus (Colobus badius) and the Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana) groups in the Taï National Park, Ivory Coast. Primates 38:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchinson GE (1978) An Introduction to population ecology. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutchinson JMC, Waser PM (2007) Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter. Biol Rev 82:335–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Itzkowitz M (1977) Social dynamics of mixed-species groups of Jamaican reef fishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:361–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenward RE (1978) Hawks and doves: factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. J Anim Ecol 47:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korstjens AH (2001) The mob, the secret sorority, and the phantoms: an analysis of the socio-ecological strategies of the three colobines of Taï. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  31. McGraw WS (1996) Positional behavior and habitat use of six monkeys in the Taï Forest, Côte d’Ivoire. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. McGraw WS, Bshary R (2002) Association of terrestrial monkeys (Cercocebus atys) with arboreal monkeys: experimental evidence for the effects of reduced ground predator pressure on habitat use. Int J Primatol 23:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGraw WS, Zuberbühler K (2008) Socioecology, predation, and cognition in a community of West African monkeys. Evol Anthropol 17:254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morse DH (1969) Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol Monogr 40:119–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moynihan M (1962) The organization and probable evolution of some mixed species flocks of neotropical birds. Smithson Misc Collect 143:1–140Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Peres CA (1992) Consequences of joint-territoriality in a mixed-species group of tamarin monkeys. Behavior 123:220–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter LM, Garber PA (2007) Niche expansion of a cryptic primate, Callimico goeldii, while in mixed species troops. Am J Primatol 69:1340–1353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shultz S, Thomsett S (2007) Interactions between African crowned eagle and their prey community. In: McGraw WS, Zuberbühler K, Noë R (eds) Monkeys of the Taï Forest: an African primate community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Stensland E, Angerbjörn A, Berggren P (2003) Mixed-species groups in mammals. Mamm Rev 33:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stoorvogel JJ (1993) Gross inputs and outputs of nutrients in disturbed forest, Taï area Côte d’Ivoire. Veenman Drukkers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  43. Wachter B, Schabel M, Noë R (1997) Diet overlap and polyspecific associations of red colobus and Diana monkeys in the Taï National Park, Ivory Coast. Ethology 103:514–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waser P (1982) Polyspecific associations: do they occur by chance? Anim Behav 30:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waser P (1984) “Chance” and mixed-species associations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Zuberbühler K (2002) Effects of natural selection on the evolution of guenon loud calls. In: Glenn ME, Cords M (eds) The guenons: diversity and adaptation in African monkeys. Kluwer, New York, pp 289–306Google Scholar
  48. Zuberbühler K, McGraw S, Noë R (eds) (2007) Monkeys of the Taï Forest: an African primate community. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre and Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), Department of AnthropologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.China Exploration and Research Society (CERS)Wong Chuk HangHong Kong, China

Personalised recommendations