4.1 Article

Studying food preferences in captive cryptic folivores can assist in conservation planning: the case of the Lumholtz's tree-kangaroo (Dendrolagus lumholtzi)

Journal

AUSTRALIAN MAMMALOGY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 200-211

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AM13036

Keywords

arboreal mammals; Dendrolagus lumholtzi; habitat fragmentation; Lumholtz's tree-kangaroo; resource-driven movements; selective feeding

Categories

Funding

  1. Centre for Rainforest Studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Food preferences of the arboreal Lumholtz's tree-kangaroo (Dendrolagus lumholtzi), endemic to the tropical rainforests of north-eastern Australia, are largely unknown, but are likely to affect the movements of this mammal within its home range and across a fragmented landscape. Food selection was investigated by applying a consumption ranking system to 35 browse species provided to six captive animals throughout different years. Animals consumed foliage from a wide range of rainforest tree species, but at different intensities, suggesting that Lumholtz's tree-kangaroo is a selective folivore. All studied animals showed a general preference for the foliage of the northern olive (Chionanthus ramiflorus) and the umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla) throughout the year while foliage from acacias (Acacia spp.), milky pine (Alstonia scholaris) and pink ash (Alphitonia petriei) was less frequently consumed. Foliage from figs (Ficus spp.) and the northern tamarind (Diploglottis diphyllostegia) was consumed at higher rates only at certain times of the year, suggesting the existence of seasonal preferences. The knowledge of general and seasonal food preferences of this large arboreal mammal may allow a better prediction of animal movements and therefore can assist in conservation efforts. Recommendations for the integration of these findings in restoration projects are given.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available