4.2 Article

Sleeping site selection by golden-backed uacaris, Cacajao melanocephalus ouakary (Pitheciidae), in Amazonian flooded forests

Journal

PRIMATES
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 273-285

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10329-012-0296-4

Keywords

Cacajao melanocephalus ouakary; Igapo; Sleeping site; Predation

Categories

Funding

  1. American Society of Primatologists
  2. Columbus Zoo Conservation Fund
  3. LSB Leakey Foundation
  4. Leakey Foundation (UK)
  5. Linnean Society (Percy Sladen Memorial Fund)
  6. Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation
  7. Oregon Zoo Foundation for Wildlife Research and Conservation
  8. Pittsburgh Zoo Conservation Fund
  9. Primate Conservation Inc.
  10. Roehampton University
  11. Sophie Danforth Conservation Biology Fund
  12. Wildlife Conservation Society
  13. CNPq Bolsa de Curta Duracao [BEV] [680.004/2009-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Amazonian seasonally flooded forest (igap), golden-backed uacaris, Cacajao melanocephalus ouakary, show high selectivity for sleeping trees. Of 89 tree species in igap, only 16 were used for sleeping (18%). Hydrochorea marginata (Fabaceae) and Ormosia paraensis (Fabaceae) were used most frequently (41% of records) despite being uncommon (Ivlev electivity ratios were 0.76, and 0.84, respectively), though the third most commonly used species (11%), Amanoa oblongifolia (Euphorbiaceae), was selected at near parity. All three species have broad, open canopies with large horizontal limbs and uncluttered interiors. Compared with random trees, sleeping trees had above average diameter at breast height (DBH) and height, lacked lianas and wasp nests, and were more frequently within 5 m of open water. Uacaris generally slept one adult per tree or widely separated in the same canopy and on the outer third of the branch. These behaviours are interpreted as maximising detection of both aerial and arboreal predators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available