Present address: Alain Houle, Peabody Museum, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Testing mechanisms of coexistence among two species of frugivorous primates
Article first published online: 23 JUN 2006
© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Ecological Society
Journal of Animal Ecology
Volume 75, Issue 4, pages 1034–1044, July 2006
How to Cite
HOULE, A., VICKERY, W. L. and CHAPMAN, C. A. (2006), Testing mechanisms of coexistence among two species of frugivorous primates. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75: 1034–1044. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01125.x
- Issue published online: 23 JUN 2006
- Article first published online: 23 JUN 2006
- Received 29 November 2005; accepted 10 April 2006
- coexistence mechanism;
- contest competition;
- foraging efficiency;
- giving-up density (GUD);
- Kibale National Park;
- patch depletion;
- 1We examined mechanisms of coexistence between two congeneric species of frugivorous primates, the blue monkey (Cercopithecus mitis) and the red-tailed monkey (C. ascanius).
- 2We used giving-up densities (the amount of food which animals leave in a patch) in fruit trees to measure foraging efficiency and to evaluate possible mechanisms of coexistence. Animals with higher giving-up densities are less likely to persist in the company of those with lower giving-up densities because the former are not able to exploit food patches used previously by the latter. We climbed trees to estimate giving-up densities by counting the fruit which primates left behind.
- 3We tested five possible mechanisms of coexistence. Three mechanisms proposed that each frugivorous species has a lower giving-up density than the other in at least one of the following: (1) different tree species, (2) within-tree foraging zones or (3) seasons. The fourth mechanism predicted that the socially dominant species exploits resources first and that the subordinate species has lower giving-up densities. The final mechanism predicted that one species would find resources more quickly than the other, which would in turn have a lower giving-up density.
- 4Four of the five mechanisms received no support from our data. Only a trade-off between interspecific dominance and giving-up densities was supported.
- 5We discuss the generality of our results and possible interactions with other factors.