Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-vfwnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T00:21:38.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Quantifying Resource Dispersion in Free-Ranging Bearded Sakis in Guyana

What Is a Patch?

from Part II - GIS Analysis in Fine-Scale Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2021

By
Christopher A. Shaffer
Edited by
Francine L. Dolins ,
Christopher A. Shaffer ,
Leila M. Porter ,
Jena R. Hickey  and
Nathan P. Nibbelink
Francine L. Dolins
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Dearborn
Christopher A. Shaffer
Affiliation:
Grand Valley State University, Michigan
Leila M. Porter
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Jena R. Hickey
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Nathan P. Nibbelink
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Few concepts are more central to models of primate socioecology than the food patch. Many aspects of primate behavior are thought to be strongly influenced or even constrained by the distribution and quality of food patches, including group size and cohesiveness, daily path length and home range size, activity patterns, social structure, and patterns of agonistic behavior (Chapman & Chapman 2000; Isbell 1991; Koenig 2002; Nakagawa 1989; Sterk et al. 1997; Symington 1988; van Schaik 1989; Vogel and Janson 2007). According to these models, selection for efficient foraging results in grouping and ranging behaviors that allow primates to maximize feeding rates within a patch (Charnov 1976; Schoener 1971; Stephens & Krebs 1986). As a group of foragers begin to deplete a patch, their mean rate of nutrient intake declines due to reduced densities of food items (scramble competition) or contests with other animals (contest competition). As larger patches contain a greater abundance or density of food items, they can accommodate larger foraging groups. For any patch size, however, a point is reached at which the diminishing returns (i.e., reduced rate of nutrient intake) become high enough that it is more efficient to leave and travel to another patch. When this point is reached is determined by the quality of and distance to the other patches available to the forager (Charnov 1976; Schoener 1971). Therefore, much of the discussion of the role resource dispersion plays in the evolution of primate socioecology revolves around the conditions under which patches are monopolizable and/or depletable. For a patch to be monopolizable, it must be relatively small and/or clumped, allowing dominant individuals to limit access of subordinates (Chapman 1990; Strier 1989; White & Wrangham 1988). In addition, a monopolizable patch should be resource-rich (at least compared to the areas surrounding it), making defending it worthwhile for dominant individuals. A patch is theoretically depletable when the feeding activity of an individual or group leads to the disappearance of all food items (Chapman & Chapman 2000; Charnov 1976). However, patches can be considered functionally depleted when the rate of intake for the forager decreases to a level equal to the average for the rest of the environment (Chapman & Chapman 2000; Charnov 1976; Stephens & Krebs 1986).

Type
Chapter
Information
Spatial Analysis in Field Primatology
Applying GIS at Varying Scales
 , pp. 152 - 179
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, D. P., Nordheim, E. V., Boesch, C., and Moermond, T. C. 2002. Factors Influencing Fission-Fusion Grouping in Chimpanzees in the Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire: Behavioural Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Anselin, L. 1995. Local indicators of spatial association: LISA. Geographical Analysis 27: 93–115.Google Scholar
Baily, T. C. and Gatrell, A. C. 1995. Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
Boyle, S. A., Lourenco, W. C., da Silva, L. R., and Smith, A. T. 2009. Home range estimates vary with sample size and methods. Folia Primatologica 80: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, R. W., Whiten, A., and Henzi, S. P. 1990. Measuring the food constraints of mountain baboons. Pages 105–122 in Baboons: Behavior and Ecology, Use and Care. de Mello, M. T., Whiten, A., and Byrne, R. W.. International Primatological Society, Brazil.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A. 1988. Patterns of foraging and range use by three species of neotropical primates. Primates 29(2): 177–194.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A. 1990. Ecological constraints on group size in three species of neotropical primates. Folia Primatologica 55: 1–9.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A. and Chapman, L. J. 2000. Determinants of group size in social primates: the importance of travel costs. Pages 24–42 in On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups. Boinski, S. and Garber, P. (Eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., Wrangham, R., Gebo, D., and Gardner, L. 1992. Estimators of fruit abundance of tropical trees. Biotropica 24: 527–531.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., White, F., Wrangham, R. W. 1994. Party size in chimpanzees and bonobos: a reevaluation of theory based on two similarly forested sites. Pages 45–57 in Chimpanzee Cultures. McGrew, W. C., Marchant, L. F., and Nishida, T. (Eds.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R. W., and Chapman, L. J. 1995. Ecological constraints on group size: an analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 59–70.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9: 129–136.Google Scholar
Clark, P. J. and Evans, F. C. 1954. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35: 445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coder, K. D. 2000. Crown Shape Factors & Volumes. University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
Coleman, B. T. and Hill, R. A. 2014. Living in a landscape of fear: the impact of predation, resource availability and habitat structure on primate range use. Animal Behaviour 88: 165–173.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. 1999. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. and Powell, R. D. 2001. A new method for characterizing point patterns in plant ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 12(5): 597–608.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T., Dixon, P. M., Fortin, M. J., et al. 2002. Conceptual and mathematical relationships among methods for spatial analysis. Ecography 25: 558–577.Google Scholar
Dammhahn, M. and Kappeler, P. M. 2008. Comparative feeding ecology of sympatric Microcebus berthae and M. murinus. International Journal of Primatology 29(6): 1567.Google Scholar
De Knegt, H. J., van Langevelde, F., Coughenour, M. B., et al. 2010. Spatial autocorrelation and the scaling of species–environment relationships. Ecology 91: 2455–2465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dias, L. G. and Strier, K. B. 2003. Effects of group size on ranging patterns in Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus. International Journal of Primatology 24: 209–221.Google Scholar
Di Fiore, A. 1997. Ecology and behavior of lowland woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii, Atelinae) in Eastern Ecuador. PhD Thesis. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Diggle, P. J. 1983. The Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dixon, P. M. 2002. Ripley’s K function. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics 3: 1796–1803.Google Scholar
Drake, J. B., Dubayah, R. O., Knox, , et al. 2002. Sensitivity of large-footprint Lidar to canopy structure and biomass in a neotropical rainforest. Remote Sensing of Environment. 81: 378–392.Google Scholar
Ebdon, D. 1985. Statistics in Geography. Blackwell, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., and Leese, M. 2001. Cluster Analysis, 4th edition. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Fatoyinbo, L. 2012. Remote Sensing of Biomass: Principles and Applications. Intech, London.Google Scholar
Furnival, G. M. 1961. An index comparing equations used in constructing volume equations. Forestry Science 7: 337–341.Google Scholar
Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fortin, M., Mark, M. J., and Dale, R. T. 2005. Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fourrier, M. S. 2013. The spatial and temporal ecology of seed dispersal by gorillas in Lopé National Park, Gabon: linking patterns of disperser behavior and recruitment in an Afrotropical forest. Dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Freeman, E. A. and Ford, E. D. 2002. Effects of data quality on analysis of ecological pattern using the K(d) statistical function. Ecology 83: 35–46.Google Scholar
Fruth, B. and Hohmann, G. 1996. Nest building behavior in the great apes: the great leap forward. Pages 225–240 in Great Ape Societies. McGrew, W., Marchant, L., and Nishida, T. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haase, P. 1995. Spatial pattern analysis in ecology based on Ripley’s K-function: introduction and methods of edge correction. Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haase, P. 2001. Can isotropy vs. anisotropy in the spatial association of plant species reveal physical vs. biotic facilitation? Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 127–136.Google Scholar
Hardesty, B. D., Hubbell, S. P., and Bermingham, E. 2006. Genetic evidence of frequent long-distance recruitment in a vertebrate-dispersed tree. Ecology Letters 9: 516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, D. J., Lefsky, M. A., Parker, G. G., and Blair, J. B. 2001. Laser altimeter canopy height profiles: methods and validation for closed-canopy, broadleaf forests. Remote Sensing of Environment 76: 283–297.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T. S. and O’Riain, M. J. 2012. Landscape requirements of a primate population in a human-dominated environment. Frontiers in Zoology 9. DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-9-1.Google Scholar
Isbell, L. A. 1991. Contest and scramble competition: patterns of female aggression and ranging behavior among primates. Behavioral Ecology 2: 143–155.Google Scholar
Isbell, L. A., Pruetz, J. D., Young, T. P., and Lewis, M. 1998. Movements of vervets (Cercopithecus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) as estimators of food resource size, density, and distribution. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42: 123–133.Google Scholar
Janson, C. 1985. Aggressive competition and individual food consumption in wild brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18(2): 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janson, C. H. 1992. Evolutionary ecology of primate social structure. Pages 95–130 in Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. Smith, E. A. and Winterhalder, B. (Eds.). Aldine, New York.Google Scholar
Janson, C. H. and Goldsmith, M. L. 1995. Predicting group size in primates: foraging costs and predation risks. Behavioral Ecology 6(3): 326–336.Google Scholar
Koenig, A. 2002. Competition for resources and its behavioral consequences among female primates. International Journal of Primatology 23: 759–783.Google Scholar
Koenig, A., Beise, J., Chalise, M. K., and Ganzhorn, J. U. 1998. When females should contest for food: testing hypotheses about resource density, distribution, size, and quality with Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42: 225–237.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
Lacher, T. E., Bouchardet da Fonseca, G. A., Alves, C., and Magalhaes-Castro, B. 1984. Parasitism of trees by marmosets in a central Brazilian gallery forest. Biotropica 16: 202–209.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. and Fortin, M. J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Plant Ecology 80: 107–138.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. and Leighton, D. R. 1982. The relationship of size and feeding aggregate size to size of food patch: howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) feeding in Trichilia cipo fruit trees on Barro Colorado Island. Biotropica 14: 81–90.Google Scholar
Levi, T., Silvius, K. M., Oliveira, L. F., Cummings, A. R., and Fragoso, J. M. 2013. Competition and facilitation in the capuchin–squirrel monkey relationship. Biotropica 45(5): 636–643.Google Scholar
Masota, A. M., Zahabu, E., Malimbwi, R. E., Bollandsas, O. E. and Eid, R. H. 2014. Volume models for single trees in tropical rainforests in Tanzania. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources 3: 66–76.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, N. 1989. Feeding strategies of Japanese monkeys against the deterioration of habitat quality. Primates 30(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Norconk, M. A., Kinzey, W. G. 1994. Challenge of neotropical frugivory: travel patterns of spider monkeys and bearded sakis. Am J Primatol 34: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ord, J. K. and Getis, A. 1995. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: Distributional issues and an application. Geographical Analysis 27: 287–306.Google Scholar
Peper, P. J., McPherson, E. G., and Mori, S. M. 2001. Equations for predicting diameter, height, crown width, and leaf area of San Joaquin Valley street trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27: 306–317.Google Scholar
Peres, C. A. 1991. Seed predation of Cariniana micrantha (Lecythidaceae) by brown capuchin monkeys in Central Amazonia. Biotropica 23(3): 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, C. A. 1996. Use of space, spatial group structure, and foraging group size of gray woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha cana) at Urucu, Brazil. Pages 467–488 in Adaptive Radiations of Neotropical Primates. Norconk, M. A., Rosenberger, A. L., and Garber, P. A. (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Perry, J. N., Liebhold, A. M., Rosenberg, M. S., et al. 2002. Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data. Ecography 25: 578–600.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. A. 1995. Resource patch size and flexible foraging in white-face capuchins (Cebus capucinus). International Journal of Primatology 16: 509–521.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. and White, P. S. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pruetz, J. D. 1999. Socioecology of adult female vervet (Cercopithecus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Kenya: food availability, feeding competition, and dominance relationships. PhD Thesis. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Pruetz, J. D. and Isbell, L. A. 2000. Correlations of food distribution and patch size with agonistic interactions in female vervets (Chlorocebus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) living in simple habitats. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49(1): 38–47.Google Scholar
Ripley, B. D. 1976. The second-order analysis of stationary point processes. Journal of Applied Probability 13: 255–266.Google Scholar
Russo, S. E. and Augspurger, C. K. 2004. Aggregated seed dispersal by spider monkeys limits recruitment to clumped patterns in Virola calophylla. Ecology Letters 7(11): 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, S. E., Portnoy, S., and Augspurger, C. K. 2006. Incorporating animal behavior into seed dispersal models: implications for seed shadows. Ecology 87(12): 3160–3174.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systems 2: 369–403.Google Scholar
Sezen, U. U., Chazdon, R. L., and Holsinger, K. E. 2009. Proximity is not a proxy for parentage in an animal-dispersed Neotropical canopy palm. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2761664: 2037–2044.Google Scholar
Shaffer, C. A. 2012. Ranging behavior, group cohesiveness, and patch use in northern bearded sakis (Chiropotes sagulatus) in Guyana. PhD Thesis. Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Shaffer, C. A. 2013a. GIS analysis of patch use and group cohesiveness of bearded sakis (Chiropotes sagulatus) in the Upper Essequibo Conservation Concession, Guyana. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 150: 235–246.Google Scholar
Shaffer, C. A. 2013b. Ecological correlates of ranging behavior in bearded sakis (Chiropotes sagulatus) in a continuous forest in Guyana. International Journal of Primatology 34: 515–532.Google Scholar
Snaith, T. V. and Chapman, C. A. 2007. Primate group size and interpreting socioecological models: do folivores really play by different rules? Evolutionary Anthropology 16: 94–106.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. and Krebs, J. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Sterk, E. A., Watts, D. P. and van Schaik, C. P. 1997. The evolution of female social relationships in primates. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 291–310.Google Scholar
Stevenson, P. R., Quinones, M. J., and Ahumada, J. A. 1998. Effects of fruit patch availability on feeding subgroup size and spacing patterns in four primate species at Tinigua National Park, Colombia. International Journal of Primatology 19(2): 313–324.Google Scholar
Strier, K. B. 1989. Effects of patch size on feeding associations in muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Folia primatologica 52: 70–77.Google Scholar
Symington, M. M. 1988. Food competition and foraging party size in the black spider monkey (Ateles paniscus chamek). Behaviour 105: 117–134.Google Scholar
Temerin, L. A. and Cant, J. H. 1983. The evolutionary divergence of Old World monkeys and apes. American Naturalist 122: 335–351.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. L., Robl, N. J., Oliveira Melo, L. C., et al. 2013. Spatial distribution and exploitation of trees gouged by common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). International Journal of Primatology 34: 65–85.Google Scholar
Tobler, W. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46(Supplement): 234–240.Google Scholar
Upton, G. and Fingleton, B. 1985. Spatial Data Analysis by Example: Volume 1: Point Pattern and Quantitative Data. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
van Schaik, C.P. 1989. The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. Pages 195–218 in Comparative Socioecology: The Behavioural Ecology of Humans and Other Mammals. Standen, V. and Foley, R.A. (Eds.). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Vogel, E. R. and Janson, C. H. 2007. Predicting the frequency of food-related agonism in white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus), using a novel focal-tree method. American Journal of Primatology 69: 533–550.Google Scholar
Vogel, E. R. and Janson, C. H. 2011. Quantifying primate food distribution and abundance for socioecological studies: an objective consumer-centered method. International Journal of Primatology 32: 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W.G. 1972. Point processes in forestry. Pages 85–116 in Stochastic Point Processes, Statistical Analysis, Theory and Application. Lewis, P.A.W. (Ed.). Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
White, F. J. and Wrangham, R. W. 1988. Feeding competition and patch size in the chimpanzee species Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes. Behaviour 105: 148–164.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R.W., Gittleman, J.L., and Chapman, C.A. 1993. Constraints on group size in primates and carnivores: population density and day-range as assays of exploitation competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32(3): 199–209.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×