Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:28:10.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogenetic constraints on fine-scale patterns of habitat use by eight primate species in eastern Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2009

Seema Nayan Sheth ,
Bette A. Loiselle  and
John G. Blake
Seema Nayan Sheth*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Whitney R. Harris World Ecology Center, University of Missouri – St. Louis, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63121USA
Bette A. Loiselle
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Whitney R. Harris World Ecology Center, University of Missouri – St. Louis, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63121USA
John G. Blake
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Whitney R. Harris World Ecology Center, University of Missouri – St. Louis, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63121USA
*
1Corresponding author, at Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1878, USA. Email: seema.sheth@colostate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Lowland forests of western Amazonia contain the most species-rich primate communities in the Neotropics, which begs the question of what mechanisms operate to promote species coexistence. This study examines habitat occupancy and its relationship to phylogeny in a primate community in Amazonian Ecuador. First, as potential factors that shape community structure, we determined whether (1) mean height in the forest canopy differed among species; (2) within each species, habitat occupancy was disproportional to habitat availability; and (3) species diverged in habitat occupancy. We then tested hypotheses regarding ecological distance and its relationship to phylogenetic distance among species pairs within this community. We tested these hypotheses primarily with data derived from 15 censuses of primate species on two 100-ha plots in eastern Ecuador. In these censuses, we observed eight primate species over nearly 200 encounters. We observed larger species at greater heights in the forest canopy than smaller ones. Although they occupied habitat types at frequencies proportionate to their availability in the study area, species diverged in habitat occupancy. Although a clear relationship was not observed between phylogenetic and ecological distances among species pairs, this study suggests that ecological differences among the species in this community facilitate their coexistence.

Keywords

AmazonAtelidaeCebidaecommunity structurehabitat useneotropical primatesniche conservatismPitheciidaespecies coexistence
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , November 2009 , pp. 571 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BLAKE, J. G. 2007. Neotropical forest bird communities: a comparison of species richness and composition at local and regional scales. The Condor 109:237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOBADILLA, U. L. & FERRARI, S. F. 2000. Habitat use by Chiropotes satanas utahicki and syntopic platyrrhines in eastern Amazonia. American Journal of Primatology 50:215–224.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BOURLIÉRE, F. 1985. Primate communities: their structure and role in tropical ecosystems. International Journal of Primatology 6:1–26.Google Scholar
BROCKELMAN, W. Y. & ALI, R. 1987. Methods of surveying forest primate populations. Pp. 23–62 in Marsh, C. W. & Mittermeier, R. A. (eds.). Primate conservation in the tropical rain forest. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
BUCHANAN-SMITH, H. M., HARDIE, S. M., CACERES, C. & PRESCOTT, M. J. 2000. Distribution and forest utilization of Saguinus and other primates of the Pando Department, northern Bolivia. International Journal of Primatology 21:353–379.Google Scholar
CLARKE, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIS, E. B. 2005. Comparison of climate space and phylogeny of Marmota (Mammalia: Rodentia) indicates a connection between evolutionary history and climate preference. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B 272;519–526.Google ScholarPubMed
DEW, J. L. 2005. Foraging, food choice, and food processing by sympatric ripe-fruit specialists: Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii and Ateles belzebuth belzebuth. International Journal of Primatology 26:1107–1135.Google Scholar
DI FIORE, A. 1997. Ecology and behavior of lowland woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii, Atelinae) in Eastern Ecuador. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Davis, Davis.Google Scholar
DI FIORE, A., FERNANDEZ-DUQUE, E. & HURST, D. 2007. Adult male replacement in socially monogamous equatorial saki monkeys (Pithecia aequatorialis). Folia Primatologica 78:88–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FLEAGLE, J. G. & MITTERMEIER, R. A. 1980. Locomotor behavior, body size, and comparative ecology of seven Surinam monkeys. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:301–314.Google Scholar
FLEAGLE, J. G. & REED, K. E. 1996. Comparing primate communities: a multivariate approach. Journal of Human Evolution 30:489–510.Google Scholar
FLEAGLE, J. G. & REED, K. E. 1999. Phylogenetic and temporal perspectives on primate ecology. Pp. 92–115 in Fleagle, J. G., Janson, C. H. & Reed, K. E. (eds). Primate communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FLEAGLE, J., MITTERMEIER, R. & SKOPEC, A. 1981. Differential habitat use by Cebus apella and Saimiri sciureus in central Surinam. Primates 22:361–367.Google Scholar
FOODEN, J. 1963. A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy 44:213–247.Google Scholar
HARDIN, G. 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:1292–1297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HARVEY, P. H. & PAGEL, M. D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 248 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAUGAASEN, T. & PERES, C. A. 2005. Primate assemblage structure in Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. American Journal of Primatology 67:243–258.Google Scholar
HEYMANN, E. W. 2000. Field observations of the golden-mantled tamarin, Saguinus tripartitus, on the Río Curaray, Peruvian Amazonia. Folia Primatologica 71:392–398.Google Scholar
HEYMANN, E. W., ENCARNACIÓN, C. F. & CANAQUIN, Y. J. E. 2002. Primates of the Río Curaray, northern Peruvian Amazon. International Journal of Primatology 23:191–201.Google Scholar
HUTCHINSON, R. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22:415–427.Google Scholar
KARUBIAN, J., FABARA, J., YUNES, D., JORGENSEN, J. P., ROMO, D. & SMITH, T. B. 2005. Temporal and spatial patterns of macaw abundance in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The Condor 107:617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129.Google Scholar
LOISELLE, B. A., BLAKE, J. G., DURÃES, R., RYDER, T. B. & TORI, W. P. 2007. Environmental segregation in lek sites among six co-occurring species of manakins (Aves: Pipridae) in eastern Ecuador. Auk 123:247–258.Google Scholar
LORD, J., WESTOBY, M. & LEISHMAN, M. 1995. Seed size and phylogeny in six temperate floras: constraints, niche conservatism, and adaptation. American Naturalist 146:349–364.Google Scholar
LOSOS, J. B., LEAL, M., GLOR, R. E., DE QUEIROZ, K., HERTZ, P. E., RODRIGUEZ SCHETTINO, L., CHAMIZO LARA, A., JACKMAN, R. R. & LARSON, A. 2003. Niche lability in the evolution of a Caribbean lizard community. Nature 424:542–545.Google Scholar
MACFADDEN, B. J. 1990. Chronology of Cenozoic primate localities in South America. Journal of Human Evolution 19:151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARSH, L. K. 2004. Primate species at Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Ecuador. Neotropical Primates 12:75–78.Google Scholar
MATHER, P. M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical geography. J. Wiley & Sons, London. 532 pp.Google Scholar
MCCUNE, B. & GRACE, J. B. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon. 300 pp.Google Scholar
MITTERMEIER, R. A. & VAN ROOSMALEN, M. G. M. 1981. Preliminary observations on habitat utilization and diet in eight Surinam monkeys. Folia Primatologica 36:1–39.Google Scholar
PERES, C. A. 1988. Primate community structure in western Brazilian Amazonia. Primate Conservation 9:83–87.Google Scholar
PERES, C. A. 1993. Structure and spatial organization of an Amazonian terra firme forest primate community. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9:259–276.Google Scholar
PERES, C. A. 1994. Primate responses to phenological changes in an Amazonian terra firme forest. Biotropica 26:98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERES, C. A. 1997. Primate community structure at twenty western Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERES, C. A. 1999. General guidelines for standardizing line-transect surveys of tropical forest primates. Neotropical Primates 7:11–16.Google Scholar
PERES, C. A. & JANSON, C. H. 1999. Species coexistence, distribution, and environmental determinants of neotropical primate richness: a community-level zoogeographic analysis. Pp. 55–74 in Fleagle, J. G., Janson, C. H. & Reed, K. E. (eds.) Primate communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
PETERSON, A. T., SOBERÓN, J. & SÁNCHEZ-CORDERO, V. 1999. Conservatism of ecological niches in evolutionary time. Science 285:1265–1267.Google Scholar
PITMAN, N. C. A., TERBORGH, J. W., SILMAN, M. R., NUÑEZ, V. P., NEILL, D. A., CERÓN, C. E., PALACIOS, W. A. & AULESTIA, M. 2002. A comparison of tree species diversity in two upper Amazonian forests. Ecology 83:3210–3224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POZO, R. W. E. 2004. Preferencia de hábitat de seis primates simpátricos del Yasuní, Ecuador. Ecología Aplicada 3:128–133.Google Scholar
REED, K. E. & BIDNER, L. R. 2004. Primate communities: past, present, and possible future. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 47:2–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICE, N. H., MARTÍNEZ-MEYER, E. & PETERSON, A. T. 2003. Ecological niche differentiation in the Aphelocoma jays: a phylogenetic perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80:369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHNEIDER, H., CANAVEZ, F. C., SAMPAIO, I., MOREIRA, M. A. M., TAGLIARO, C. H. & SEUÁNEZ, H. N. 2001. Can molecular data place each neotropical monkey in its own branch? Chromosoma 109:515–523.Google Scholar
SILVERTOWN, J., DODD, M. & GOWING, D. 2001. Phylogeny and the niche structure of meadow plant communities. Journal of Ecology 89:428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILVERTOWN, J., MCCONWAY, K., GOWING, D., DODD, M., FAY, M. F., JOSEPH, J. A. & DOLPHIN, K. 2006. Absence of phylogenetic signal in the niche structure of meadow plant communities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B 273:39–44.Google ScholarPubMed
SMITH, R. J. & JUNGERS, W. L. 1997. Body mass in comparative primatology. Journal of Human Evolution 32:523–559.Google Scholar
STEVENSON, P. R., QUIÑONES, M. J. & AHUMADA, J. A. 2000. Influence of fruit availability on ecological overlap among four Neotropical primates at Tinigua National Park, Colombia. Biotropica 32:533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1983. Five new world primates: a study in comparative ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 260 pp.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. & VAN SCHAIK, C. P. 1987. Convergence vs. nonconvergence in primate communities. Pp. 205–226 in Gee, J. H. R. & Giller, P. S. (eds). Organization of communities: past and present. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
VAN ROOSMALEN, M. G. M., VAN ROOSMALEN, T. & MITTERMEIER, R. A. 2002. A taxonomic review of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species, Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi, from Brazilian Amazonia. Neotropical Primates 10 (Suppl.):1–52.Google Scholar
WALLACE, R. B., PAINTER, R. L. E. & TABER, A. B. 1998. Primate diversity, habitat preferences, and population density estimates in Noel Kempff Mercado National Park, Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia. American Journal of Primatology 46:197–211.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEBB, C. O., ACKERLY, D. D., MCPEEK, M. A. & DONOGHUE, M. J. 2002. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:475–505.Google Scholar
WIENS, J. J. & GRAHAM, C. H. 2005. Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 36:519–539.Google Scholar
YOULATOS, D. 1999. Comparative locomotion of six sympatric primates in Ecuador. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 20:161–168.Google Scholar
YOULATOS, D. 2004. Multivariate analysis of organismal and habitat parameters in two Neotropical primate communities. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123:181–194.Google Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. (Fourth edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. 962 pp.Google Scholar