International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 949–970 | Cite as

Dietary Response of Chimpanzees and Cercopithecines to Seasonal Variation in Fruit Abundance. I. Antifeedants

  • Richard W. Wrangham
  • Nancy Lou Conklin-Brittain
  • Kevin D. Hunt
Article

Abstract

In order to understand dietary differentiation among frugivorous primates with simple stomachs, we present the first comparison of plant diets between chimpanzees and cercopithecine monkeys that controls for food abundance. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that monkeys have a more diverse diet as a result of their dietary tolerance for chemical antifeedants. Our study species are chimpanzees, blue monkeys, redtail monkeys, and gray-cheeked mangabeys living in overlapping ranges in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We indexed food abundance by the percentage of trees having ripe fruit within the range of each group; it varied widely during the year. Chimpanzees spent almost 3 times as much of their feeding time eating ripe fruits as the monkeys did and confined their diets almost exclusively to ripe fruits when they were abundant. Monkeys maintained a diverse diet at all times. When ripe fruit was scarce chimpanzee and monkey diets diverged. Chimpanzees relied on piths as their main fallback food, whereas monkeys turned to unripe fruits and seeds. For each primate group we calculated the total weighted mean intake of 5 antifeedants; condensed tannins (CT), total tannins assayed by radial diffusion (RD), monoterpenoids (MT), triterpenoids (TT), and neutral-detergent fiber (NDF). Monkeys had absolutely higher intakes of CT, RD, MT, and TT than those of chimpanzees, and their intake of NDF did not differ from that of chimpanzees, appearing relatively high given their lower body weights. However contrary to expectation, dietary divergence during fruit scarcity was not associated with any change in absolute or relative intake of antifeedants. For example, fruit scarcity did not affect the relative intake of antifeedants by cercopithecines compared to chimpanzees. Our results establish chimpanzees as ripe-fruit specialists, whereas cercopithecines are generalists with a higher intake of antifeedants. The low representation of ripe fruits in the diets of cercopithecines has not been explained. An important next step is to test the hypothesis that the difference between Kibale chimpanzees and cercopithecines represents a more general difference between apes and monkeys.

diet ape monkey terpenoids tannins fiber seasonality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Aiello, L. C., and Wheeler, P. (1995). The expensive-tissue hypothesis: The brain and the digestive system in human and primate evolution. Curr. Anthropol. 36: 199–221.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. J. (1981). Species diversity and diet in monkeys and apes during the Miocene. In Stringer, C. B. (ed.), Aspects of Human Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
  3. Basuta, G. I. (1989). Feeding ecology of chimpanzees in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In Heltne, P. G., and Marquardt, L. A. (eds.), Understanding Chimpanzees, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 116–127.Google Scholar
  4. Butynski, T. M. (1990). Comparative ecology of blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis) in high-and low-density subpopulations. Ecol. Monog. 60: 1–26.Google Scholar
  5. Calvert, J. J. (1985). Food selection by western gorillas (G. g. gorilla) in relationship to food chemistry. Oecologia 65: 236–246.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, C. A., and Wrangham, R. W. (1993). Range use of the forest chimpanzees of Kibale: implications for the understanding of chimpanzee social organization. Am. J. Primatol 31: 263–273.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, C. A., White, F., and Wrangham, R. W. (1994). Party composition and tree-fruit parameters in chimpanzees and bonobos. In Wrangham, R. W., McGrew, W. C., de Waal, F. B., and Heltne, P. G. (eds.) Chimpanzee Cultures, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R. W., and Chapman, L. J. (1995). Ecological constraints on group size: an analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 199–209.Google Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1977). Some aspects of intraspecific variation in feeding and ranging behaviour in primates. In Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed.) Primate Ecology: Studies of Feeding and Ranging in Lemurs, Monkeys, and Apes, Academic Press, London, pp. 539–556.Google Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Harvey, P. H. (1979). Home range size, population density and phylogeny in primates. In Bernstein, I. S., and Smith, E. O. (eds.), Primate Ecology and Human Origins, Garland Press, New York, pp. 201–214.Google Scholar
  11. Conklin, N. L., and Wrangham, R. W. (1994). The value of figs to a hind-gut fermenting frugivore: A nutritional analysis. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 22:137–151.Google Scholar
  12. Conklin-Brittain, N. L., Wrangham, R. W., and Hunt, K. D. (1998). Dietary response of chimpanzees and cercopithecines to seasonal variation in fruit abundance. II. Macronutrients. Int. J. Primatol. 19: 971–997.Google Scholar
  13. Cords, M. (1986). Interspecific and intracpecific variation in diet of 2 forest guenons, Cercopithecus ascanius and C. mitis. J. Anim. Ecol. 55: 811–827.Google Scholar
  14. Cords, M. (1987). Mixed-Species Association of Cercopithecus Monkeys in the Kakamega Forest, Kenya, University of California Publications in Zoology, Vol. 117.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, A. G., Bennett, E. L., and Waterman, P. G. (1988). Food selection by two South-East Asian colobine monkeys (Presbytis rubicunda and Presbytis melalophos) in relation to plant chemistry. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 34: 33–56.Google Scholar
  16. Freeland, W. J., and Saladin, L. R. (1988). Choice of mixed diets by herbivores: The idiosyncratic effects of plant secondary compounds. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 17: 493–497.Google Scholar
  17. Ganzhorn, J. U. (1988). Food partitioning among Malagasy primates. Oecologia 75: 436–450.Google Scholar
  18. Ganzhorn, J. U. (1989). Primate species separation in relation to secondary plant chemicals. Hum. Evol. 4: 125–132.Google Scholar
  19. Gaulin, S. J. C., and Konner, M. (1977). On the natural diet of primates, including humans. In Wurtman, R. and Wurtman, J. (eds.), Nutrition and the Brain, Vol. 1, Raven Press, New York, pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
  20. Gautier-Hion, A. (1980). Seasonal variations of diet related to species and sex in a community of Cercopithecus monkeys. J. Anim. Ecol. 49: 237–269.Google Scholar
  21. Gershenzon, J., and Croteau, R. (1991). Terpenoids. In Rosenthal, G. A., and Berenbaum, M. R. (eds.) Herbivores, Their Interactions With Secondary Plant Metabolites. Vol. 1. The Chemical Participants, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 165–219.Google Scholar
  22. Ghiglieri, M. P. (1984). The Chimpanzees of Kibale Forest, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Glander, K. E. (1982). The impact of plant secondary compounds on primate feeding behavior. Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 25: 1–18.Google Scholar
  24. Guillotin, M., Dubost, G., and Sabatier, D. (1994). Food choice and food competition among the three major primate species of French Guiana. J. Zool. (Lond.) 233: 551–579.Google Scholar
  25. Hagerman, A. E. (1987). Radial diffusion method for determining tannin in plant extracts. J. Chem. Ecol. 13: 437–449.Google Scholar
  26. Harborne, J. B. (1993). Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry, 4th ed., Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  27. Kay, R. F. (1984). On the use of anatomical features to infer foraging behavior in extinct primates. In Rodman, P. S., and J. G. H. Cant (eds.), Adaptations for Foraging in Nonhuman Primates: Contributions to an Organismal Biology of Prosimians, Monkeys and Apes, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
  28. Kay, R. F., and Hylander, W. L. (1978). The dental structure of mammalian folivores with special reference to Primates and Phalangeroidea (Marsupialia). In Montgomery, G. G. (ed.), The Biology of Arboreal Folivores, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
  29. Kerbis Peterhans, J., Wrangham, R. W., Carter, M. L., and Hauser, M. D. (1994). A contribution to tropical rain forest taphonomy: Retrieval and documentation of chimpanzee remains from Kibale Forest, Uganda. J. Hum. Evol. 25: 485–514.Google Scholar
  30. Kingsbury, J. M. (1978). Ecology of poisoning. In Keeler, R. F., Van Kampen, K. R., and James, L. F. (eds.), Effects of Poisonous Plants on Livestock, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Kinzey, W. G., and Norconk, M. A. (1993). Physical and chemical properties of fruit and seeds eaten by Pithecia and Chiropotes in Surinam and Venequela. Int. J. Primatol. 14: 207–227.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Lindroth, R. L. (1989). Mammalian herbivore-plant interactions. In Abrahamson, W. G. (ed.), Plant-Animal Interactions, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 163–206.Google Scholar
  34. Maisels, F. (1993). Gut passage rate in guenons and mangabeys: Another indicator of a flexible feeding niche? Folia Primatol. 61: 35–37.Google Scholar
  35. Marks, D. L., Swain, T., Goldstein, S., Richard, A., and Leighton, M. (1988). Chemical correlates of rhesus monkey food choice: The influence of hydrolyzable tannins. J. Chem. Ecol. 14: 213–235.Google Scholar
  36. McKey, D. B., Gartlan, J. S., Waterman, P. G., and Choo, G. M. (1981). Food selection by black colobus monkeys (Colobus satanas) in relation to plant chemistry. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 16: 115–146.Google Scholar
  37. Milton, K. (1979). Factors influencing leaf choice by howler monkeys: A test of some hypotheses of food selection by generalist herbivores. Am. Nat. 114: 362–378.Google Scholar
  38. Milton, K. (1980). The Foraging Strategy of Howler Monkeys, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Milton, K., and Demment, M. W. (1988). Chimpanzees fed high and low fiber diets and comparison with human data. J. Nutr. 118: 1082–1088.Google Scholar
  40. Mole, S., Butler, L. G., and Iason, G. (1990). Defense against dietary tannin in herbivores: A survey for proline-rich salivary proteins in mammals. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 18: 287–293.Google Scholar
  41. Oates, J. F., Swain, T., and Zantovska, J. (1977). Secondary compounds and food selection by colobus monkeys. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 5: 317–321.Google Scholar
  42. Oates, J. F., Waterman, P. G., and Choo, G. M. (1980). Food selection by the south Indian leaf-monkey, Presbytis johnii, in relation to leaf chemistry. Oecologia 45: 45–56.Google Scholar
  43. Provenza, F. D., and Cincotta, R. P. (1993). Foraging as a self-organizational learning process: accepting adaptability at the expense of predictability. In Hughes, R. N. (ed.) Diet Selection: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Foraging Behaviour, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 78–101.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, M. E., Maisels, F., Williamson, E. A., Tutin, C. E. G., and Fernandez, M. (1992). Nutritional aspects of Gorilla food choice in the Lopé reserve, Gabon. In Matano, S., Tuttle, R. H., Ishida, H., and Goodman, M. (eds.), Topics in Primatology, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 255–266.Google Scholar
  45. Rolls, E. T., Critchley, H. D., Wakeman, E. A., and Mason, R. (1996). Responses of neurons in the primate taste cortex to the glutamate ion and to inosine 5′-monophosphate. Physiol. Behav., 59: 991–1000.Google Scholar
  46. Rudran, R. (1978a). Socioecology of the blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni) of the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, Vol. 249, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
  47. Rudran, R. (1978b). Intergroup dietary comparisons and folivorous tendencies of two groups of blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni). In Montgomery, G. G. (ed.), The Ecology of Arboreal Folivores, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, pp. 483–503.Google Scholar
  48. Struhsaker, T. T. (1978). Food habits of five monkey species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. In Chivers, D. J., and Herbert, J. (eds.), Recent Advances in Primatology, Vol. 1., Academic Press, New York, pp. 225–248.Google Scholar
  49. Struhsaker, T. T. (1980). Comparison of the behaviour and ecology of red colobus and redtail monkeys in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 18:33–51.Google Scholar
  50. Struhsaker T. T., and Leland, L. (1979). Sociobiology of five sympatric monkey species in Kibale forest, Uganda. Adv. Study Behav. 9:159–227.Google Scholar
  51. Temerin, L. A., and Cant, J. G. H. (1983). The evolutionary divergence of old world monkeys and apes. Am. Nat. 122(3): 335–351.Google Scholar
  52. van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  53. Waser, P. M. (1975). Monthly variations in feeding and activity patterns of the mangabey, Cercocebus albigena. E. Afr. Wild. J. 13: 249–263.Google Scholar
  54. Waser, P. M. (1976). Cercocebus albigena: site attachment, avoidance, and intergroup spacing. Am. Nat. 110: 911–935.Google Scholar
  55. Waser, P. M. (1977). Feeding, ranging, and group size in the mangabey Cercocebus albigena. In Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed), Primate Ecology, Academic Press, London, pp. 183–222.Google Scholar
  56. Waser. P. M. (1987). Interactions among primate species. 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. 210–226.Google Scholar
  57. Waterman, P. G., Mbi, C. N., McKey, D. B., and Gartlan, J. S. (1980). African rainforest vegetation and rumen microbes: Phenolic compounds and nutrients as correlates of digestibility Oecol. 47: 22–33.Google Scholar
  58. Wrangham, R. W. (1980). An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour 75: 262–299.Google Scholar
  59. Wrangham, R. W., and Waterman, P. G. (1983). Condensed tannins in fruits eaten by chimpanzees. Biotropica 15: 217–233.Google Scholar
  60. Wrangham, R. W., Conklin, N. L., Chapman, C. A., and Hunt, K. D. (1991). The significance of fibrous foods for Kibale Forest chimpanzees. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 334: 171–178.Google Scholar
  61. Wrangham, R. W., Chapman, C. A., Clark, A. P., and Isabirye-Basuta, G. (1996). Social ecology of Kanyawara chimpanzees: Implications for understanding the costs of great ape groups. In McGrew, W. C., Marchant, L. F., and Nishida, T. (eds.), Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.45–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard W. Wrangham
    • 1
  • Nancy Lou Conklin-Brittain
    • 1
  • Kevin D. Hunt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, Peabody MuseumHarvard UniversityCambridge
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations