4.5 Article

Foraging, food choice, and food processing by sympatric ripe-fruit specialists:: Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii and Ateles belzebuth belzebuth

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 1107-1135

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10764-005-6461-5

关键词

Ateles; frugivory; geophagy; Lagothrix; niche separation; seed dispersal

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of interspecific competition and niche separation have formed some of the seminal works of ecology. I conducted an 18-mo study comparing the feeding ecologies of 2 sympatric, closely-related ripe-fruit specialists, Humboldt's woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii), and the white-bellied spider monkeys (Ateles belzebuth belzebuth) in Amazonian Ecuador. Woolly monkeys in the terra firme forest live at roughly triple the density of spider monkeys (31 versus 11.5 animals/km(2)). Woolly monkeys spend 17% of their time foraging, while spider monkeys spend only 1% of their time foraging. Spider monkeys alone fed on soil and termitaria, which are rich in phosphorus. Woolly monkeys are not hard-fruit specialists. Their fruit diet is significantly more diverse than that of spider monkeys. Dietary overlap between the 2 species is high, yet each specializes to some degree on a different set of fruit resources. Woolly monkeys visit more food sources per unit of time, feed lower in the canopy, visit more small food patches, and prey on more seeds. Spider monkeys feed on fewer, richer food sources and are more than twice as likely to return to a particular fruit source than woolly monkeys are. Spider monkeys maximize fruit pulp intake, carrying more intact seeds in their guts, while woolly monkeys minimize seed bulk swallowed through more careful food processing. Surprisingly, several preferred spider monkey foods with high fat content and large seeds are avoided by woolly monkeys. I outline the different ecological dimensions involved in niche separation between the 2 species and discuss the possible impetus for their evolutionary divergence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据