How Variable Is a Primate’s World: Spatial and Temporal Variation in Potential Ecological Drivers of Behaviour?
The field of primatology has reached the stage where there are sufficient long-term studies and many shorter investigations on the same species at many different locations, in which we are able to appreciate how variable the behaviour of primates can be and how predictable their environment is over space and time. For example, redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) exhibit extreme flexibility in diet; i.e. within the same national park, the amount of time they spend eating fruit varies from 36 to 60% of their foraging time, and among populations, time spent eating fruit ranges from 13 to 61%. Similarly, long-term phenological data from the same area encompassing over two decades illustrate that fruit availability can vary among years by as much as eightfold. While data have steadily accumulated on how variable primate behaviour and proposed environmental predictors of behaviour can be, this information has not been used to effectively re-evaluate theory. For example, current primate socioecological theory has derived general frameworks using the average behavioural traits of species or genera, but these new data suggest it is inappropriate to use such averages. Similarly, environments have often been characterized by single studies of 2 years or less, which does not sufficiently account for environmental variation. Here, we present examples of behavioural and ecological variation and consider ways that our field could advance in the future by considering this variation.
KeywordsDiet Social organization Ecological determinants Group size Standardized methods
This paper is dedicated to Dr. Linda Fedigan who was so very influential to Colin Chapman starting his research career when he was an undergrad, supervised him through his graduate degrees, and then has provided critical mentorship and letters of recommendation to this day. Funding for the research in Kibale National Park was provided by the Canada Research Chairs Program, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fonds Québécois de la Recherché sur la Nature et les Technologies, and the National Geographic Society. Tom Struhsaker has been particularly helpful over the years with sharing long-term data and opinions, and Karen Strier provided stimulating ideas and discussion on variability and flexibility. Finally, we would like to thank Urs Kalbitzer, Kathy Jack, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.
- Bortolamiol S, Cohen M, Potts K, Rwaburindore P, Kasenene J, Seguya A, Pennec F, Viguaud Q, S. K (2014) Suitable habitats for endangered frugivorous mammals: small-scale comparison, regeneration forest and chimpanzee density in Kibale National Park, Uganda. PLoS One 9:e102177PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bush MB (2000) Ecology of a changing planet. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Campos FA, Morris WF, Alberts SC, Altmann J, Brockman DK, Cords M, Pusey A, Stoinski TS, Strier KB, Fedigan LM (2017) Does climate variability influence the demography of wild primates? Evidence from long-term life-history data in seven species. Glob Chang BiolGoogle Scholar
- Chapman CA, Chapman LJ, Cords M, Gauthua M, Gautier-Hion A, Lambert JE, Rode KD, Tutin CEG, White LJT (2002a) Variation in the diets of Cercopithecus species: differences within forests, among forests, and across species. In: Glenn M, Cords M (eds) The guenons: diversity and adaptation in African monkeys. Plenum, New York, pp 319–344Google Scholar
- Chapman CA, Valenta K, Bonnell TR, Brown KA, Chapman LJ (in press) Solar radiation drives fruit phenology: Evaluating a 16 year record from Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological SciencesGoogle Scholar
- Croat TB (1978) Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Hogan J, Melin A (2018, this volume) Intra- and interannual variation in the fruit diet of wild capuchins: impact of plant phenology. In: Kalbitzer U, Jack KM (eds) Primate life histories, sex roles, and adaptability – essays in Honour of Linda M Fedigan developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Springer, New York, pp 193–210Google Scholar
- Koenig A, Borries C (2006) The predictive power of socioecological models: a reconsideration of resource characteristics, agonism and dominance hierarchies. In: Hohmann G, Robbins MM, Boesch C (eds) Feeding ecology in apes and other primates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 263–284Google Scholar
- Langergraber KE, Prüfer K, Rowney C, Boesch C, Crockford C, Fawcett K, Inoue E, Inoue-Muruyama M, Mitani JC, Muller MN (2012) Generation times in wild chimpanzees and gorillas suggest earlier divergence times in great ape and human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:15716–15721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marshall AJ, Boyko CM, Feilen KL, Boyko RH, Leighton M (2009) Defining fallback foods and assessing their importance in primate ecology and evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol, in pressGoogle Scholar
- McNab BK (2002) The physiological ecology of vertebrates: a view from energetics. Cornell University Press, CornellGoogle Scholar
- Newbery DM, Songwe NC, Chuyong GB (1998) Phenology and dynamics of an African rainforest at Korup, Cameroon. In: Newbery DM, Pins HHT, Brown ND (eds) Dynamics of tropical communities. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Rothman JM, Raubenheimer D, Chapman CA (2011) Nutritional geometry: gorillas prioritize non-protein energy while consuming surplus protein. Biol Lett:rsbl20110321Google Scholar
- Terborgh J (1983) Five new world primates. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Terborgh J (1986) Keystone plant resources in the tropical forest. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 330–344Google Scholar
- van Schaik CP (1989) The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In: Standen V, Foley RA (eds) Comparative socioecology: the behavioural ecology of humans and other mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, pp 195–218Google Scholar