Geographic comparison of plant genera used in frugivory among the pitheciids Cacajao, Callicebus, Chiropotes, and Pithecia
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Date Issued
2016Author
Boyle, Sarah A.Thompson, Cynthia L.
Deluycker, Anneke
Alvarez, Silvia J.
Alvim, Thiago H.G.
Aquino, Rolando
Bezerra, Bruna M.
Boubli, Jean P.
Bowler, Mark
Caselli, Christini Barbosa
Chagas, Renata R.D.
Ferrari, Stephen F.
Fontes, Isadora P.
Gregory, Tremaine
Haugaasen, Torbjørn
Heiduck, Stefanie
Hores, Rose
Lehman, Shawn
de Melo, Fabiano R.
Moreira, Leandro S.
Moura, Viviane S.
Nagy-Reis, Mariana B.
Palacios, Erwin
Palminteri, Suzanne
Peres, Carlos A.
Pinto, Liliam
Port-Carvalho, Marcio
Rodríguez, Adriana
dos Santos, Ricardo R.
Setz, Eleonore Z.F.
Shaffer, Christopher A.
Silva, Felipe Ennes
Soares da Silva, Rafaela F.
Souza-Alves, João P.
Trevelin, Leonardo C.
Veiga, Liza M.
Vieira, Tatiana M.
DuBose, Mary E.
Barnett, Adrian A.
Journal
American Journal of PrimatologyVolume
78Issue
5Start page
493End page
506
Metadata
Show full item recordAlternative link
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.22422/abstractAbstract
Pitheciids are known for their frugivorous diets, but there has been no broad-scale comparison of fruit genera used by these primates that range across five geographic regions in South America. We compiled 31 fruit lists from data collected from 18 species (three Cacajao, six Callicebus, five Chiropotes, and four Pithecia) at 26 study sites in six countries. Together, these lists contained 455 plant genera from 96 families. We predicted that 1) closely related Chiropotes and Cacajao would demonstrate the greatest similarity in fruit lists; 2) pitheciids living in closer geographic proximity would have greater similarities in fruit lists; and 3) fruit genus richness would be lower in lists from forest fragments than continuous forests. Fruit genus richness was greatest for the composite Chiropotes list, even though Pithecia had the greatest overall sampling effort. We also found that the Callicebus composite fruit list had lower similarity scores in comparison with the composite food lists of the other three genera (both within and between geographic areas). Chiropotes and Pithecia showed strongest similarities in fruit lists, followed by sister taxa Chiropotes and Cacajao. Overall, pitheciids in closer proximity had more similarities in their fruit list, and this pattern was evident in the fruit lists for both Callicebus and Chiropotes. There was no difference in the number of fruit genera used by pitheciids in habitat fragments and continuous forest. Our findings demonstrate that pitheciids use a variety of fruit genera, but phylogenetic and geographic patterns in fruit use are not consistent across all pitheciid genera. This study represents the most extensive examination of pitheciid fruit consumption to date, but future research is needed to investigate the extent to which the trends in fruit genus richness noted here are attributable to habitat differences among study sites, differences in feeding ecology, or a combination of both. Am. J. Primatol. 78:493–506, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Type
ArticleRights
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1002/ajp.22422
Scopus Count
Collections