-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
1/18
Sleeping Sites of Spider Monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi )
in Logged and Unlogged Tropical Forests
Guadalupe Velázquez-Vázquez1 & Rafael Reyna-Hurtado1 &
Victor Arroyo-Rodríguez2 & Sophie Calmé1,3 &
Mathieu Léger-Dalcourt3 & Darío A. Navarrete4
Received: 3 August 2015 /Accepted: 27 October 2015 / Published online: 15 December 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Selective logging can have negative effects on biodiversity and on key
ecological processes such as seed dispersal and forest regeneration. Yet, the effect that
timber extraction has on animal behavior and habitat use is poorly known. We tested
whether the density, distribution, and composition of sleeping sites used by spider
monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi) differed between two logged and two unlogged forest sites
in the Calakmul region, southeastern Mexico. We recorded a total of 74 sleeping sites
(0.11 sleeping sites/ha). The density of sleeping sites did not differ between forest conditions. Most (97%) sleeping sites were located in medium-stature semievergreen
forest, and only 3% in low-stature seasonally inundated forest. In three of four sites, the
number of sleeping sites in core areas was significantly greater than expected by
chance, showing an aggregated spatial distribution, particularly in areas containing a
greater density of feeding trees. About half (51%) of the sleeping sites were composed
of a single large tree (mean ± SD diameter at breast height, 42.2 ± 21.9 cm) from a
small number of tree species, such as Lonchocarpus castelloi, Bucida buceras, and
Lysiloma latisiliquum. These results suggest that the current level of timber extraction
seems to have no effect on the density, distribution, and composition of sleeping sites.
Nevertheless, because the species that were selected as sleeping trees are subject to
Int J Primatol (2015) 36:1154 – 1171
DOI 10.1007/s10764-015-9883-8
* Guadalupe Velázquez-Vázquez
1Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR),
Unidad Campeche, CP 24500 Campeche, México2
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México (UNAM), Morelia 58190 Michoacán, México
3 Département de Biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada
4Laboratorio de Información Geográfica, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal
de Las Casas CP 29290 Chiapas, México
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10764-015-9883-8&domain=pdf
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
2/18
timber extraction, the availability of sleeping sites is expected to decrease in coming
decades, potentially modifying the habitat use of this primate species.
Keywords Home range . Latrine . Neotropical primates . Seed dispersal . Sleeping tree .
Timber extraction
Introduction
Selective logging is a pervasive driver of forest degradation across the tropics (Asner
et al . 2009), with negative effects on many plant and animal species (Fredericksen and
Fredericksen 2002; Heydon and Bulloh 1997; Putz et al . 2001; cf. Berry et al . 2010;
Bicknell et al . 2015), including primates (Gutiérrez-Granados and Dirzo 2010; Johns
1992). Logging can also alter soil properties and forest regeneration (Malhi et al . 2014;Putz et al . 2001), as well as ecological interactions such as frugivory, seed dispersal,
and seedling recruitment (Gutiérrez-Granados and Dirzo 2010; Johns 1992).
Nevertheless, the effect that timber extraction may have on animal behavior
and habitat use is largely unknown, particularly for primates (cf. Chapman et
al . 2000). This information is required to design effective conservation strate-
gies, particularly considering that timber extraction is an economically impor-
tant activity that is becoming increasingly common in tropical forests world-
wide (Ariyanti et al . 2008; Asner et al . 2005; Berry et al . 2010; Malhi et al .
2014).Timber extraction can modify the tree canopy, potentially altering resource avail-
ability and habitat use for primates that are primarily tree dwellers. Sleeping sites are an
important resource for many tree-dwelling primates, which depend on suitable sleeping
sites for their daily activity patterns and survival (Anderson 1998; Smith et al . 2007).
The selection of sleeping sites by primates depends on many factors. For example,
night or owl monkeys ( Aotus spp.), gibbons ( Hylobates lar ), and spider monkeys
( Ateles geoffroyi) select sleeping sites that are composed of one or several closely
spaced large trees with dense foliage in which to sleep, most probably as a strategy for
hiding from predators and as protection from adverse climatic conditions (Aquino and
Encarnación 1986; González-Zamora et al . 2012; Reichard 1998). Also, many primate
species select sleeping sites that are located near available food resources to reduce
travel costs and increase foraging efficiency ( Ateles geoffroyi: Asensio et al . 2012a ;
Chapman 1989; González-Zamora et al . 2014; Callithrix jacchus: Mendes-Pontes and
Lira 2005; Collobus vellerosus: Teichroeb et al . 2012; Saguinus spp.: Smith et al .
2007). Thus, the loss and alteration of sleeping sites as a consequence of selective
logging could limit the persistence of primates in human-modified tropical landscapes,
but to our knowledge, no study to date has tested the effect of timber extraction on
primate selection of sleeping sites.
Here, we tested whether the density, distribution, and composition of sleeping sites
used by spider monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi) differed between logged and unlogged
forests in the Calakmul region, southeastern Mexico. In this region, ca. 6500 km2 are
devoted to timber extraction following de facto norms established by the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC 1996) regarding forest management, e.g., minimizing
damage to remaining trees, soil, and water bodies, ensuring tree regeneration,
Sleeping Sites of Ateles geoffroyi 1155
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
3/18
diversifying timber production). The effects that such management practices may have
on primates are unknown.
Spider monkeys show fission – fusion social dynamics (Aureli and Schaffner 2008),
i.e., they split to forage in subgroups of variable size and composition during the day,
and may congregate in larger subgroups during the evening to sleep in sleeping sitesthat are formed by one or several sleeping trees (Chapman 1989; González-Zamora
et al . 2012, 2014; Russo and Augspurger 2004). As they frequently return to the same
sleeping sites after feeding excursions, they are considered Bmulti-central place
foragers^ ( sensu Chapman et al . 1989). Spider monkeys deposit scats containing seeds
along their daily routes and deposit copious amounts of dung and seeds in latrines that
are located beneath sleeping sites (González-Zamora et al . 2012, 2014, 2015; Russo et
al . 2006). For example, González-Zamora et al . (2014) found that 8 communities of
spider monkeys deposited >45,000 seeds (>5 mm in length) from 68 plant species
during a 13-mo period. Although seed aggregation in latrines can increase seedmortality (Connell 1971; Janzen 1970), the enormous accumulation of seeds and
seedlings in latrines could saturate seed and seedling predators, thus allowing some
seeds and seedlings to escape predation and recruit in latrines (Bravo 2012). Thus,
spider monkey latrines may represent hotspots of seedling recruitment, thereby having
a key role in forest regeneration (González-Zamora et al . 2014, 2015; Russo and
Augspurger 2004; Russo and Chapman 2011). Therefore, understanding the impact
that selective logging may have on the density, spatial distribution, and composition of
sleeping sites has critical ecological and conservation implications. Such information is
particularly urgent because spider monkeys are increasingly forced to inhabit human-modified landscapes, which are subject to timber extraction (Ramos-Fernández and
Wallace 2008).
We hypothesized that timber extraction limits the availability of suitable sleeping
trees. More specifically, we predicted that the density of sleeping sites would be lower
in logged than in unlogged forests. We also predicted that the distribution of sleeping
sites would be spatially more dispersed in logged forests than in unlogged forests,
because food resources may be less abundant and spatially more dispersed in logged
forests than in unlogged forests. Finally, we predicted that monkeys would rely on
fewer tree species and smaller trees in logged forests than in unlogged forests,
particularly if sleeping trees were subject to timber extraction.
Methods
Study Area
We performed the study in the Nuevo Becal ejido, a communally shared area adjacent
to the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Calakmul Municipality, Campeche, Mexico
(18°40′07.7′′ N, 89°12′34.3′′W) (Fig. 1). This ejido has an area of 520 km2, of which
250 km2 are devoted to timber extraction. The climate is warm and sub-humid, with
annual temperatures averaging 27°C, and annual precipitation ranging from 600 to
1200 mm (García et al . 2002). A dry season occurs from December to May, and a rainy
season from June to November. The vegetation is composed mainly of medium-stature
semievergreen forest, with trees reaching heights of 20 – 25 m, and low-stature
1156 G. Velázquez-Vázquez et al.
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
4/18
Figure 1 Location of study sites in Campeche State, Mexico. Small polygons with black outlines represent
the home ranges of four groups of spider monkeys for five consecutive months in 2014. The groups are
located in two logged forests (L1 and L2) and two unlogged forests (C1 and C2). Spatial distribution of
sleeping sites (▲) and feeding trees (+) used by the four groups of spider monkeys in their home ranges are
also indicated. We estimated home ranges using the minimum convex polygon method (black line) and the
fixed kernel method at 95% (gray line) and 50% (white line).
Sleeping Sites of Ateles geoffroyi 1157
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
5/18
seasonally inundated forest, with trees
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
6/18
considered all latrines that were located
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
7/18
recording it. To estimate the availability of trees that could be potentially used as
sleeping trees, we recorded all trees with a DBH ≥10 cm in 30 randomly distributed 50
m × 2 m plots in C1 and L1 (3000 m2 of sampling area per site), and in 74 circular plots
each of 10-m radius in sites C2 and L2 (23,247 m2 of sampling area per site). We used
these two types of plots because they were designed for estimating variables not included in the present study. Yet, such differences did not bias our results, as we
included both types of plots in both unlogged and logged forests.
We estimated inter-sleeping site distances with the Hawth’s Tools-Nearest Neighbor
extension for ArcGIS 9.3 (Beyer 2004). The analysis was made with the extension
Spatial Statistics and Analyzing Patterns with the tool Average Nearest Neighbor. To
evaluate the spatial distribution of sleeping sites, we used the Average Nearest-
Neighbor (ANN) index:
ANN ¼ Do
DE
where Do is the average distance between each sleeping site and its closest neighbor,
and DE is the average expected distance, expressed as a function of a random pattern.
Do ¼X N
i¼
1
d i
DE ¼0:5 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi N = A
p
where d i is the distance between sleeping site i and its nearest neighboring sleeping site,
N is the total number of sleeping sites, and A is the area that encapsulates all recorded
sleeping sites. Values of ANN 1
indicate a dispersed pattern (Mitchell 2005).
Home Range of Spider Monkeys
We used the minimum convex polygon (MCP) and fixed kernel methods to estimate
the home range (MCP and fixed kernel) and core areas (fixed kernel) of each commu-
nity. MCP is used mainly for comparative purposes as it is widely employed, and
because it represents the entire area that animals can visit. The fixed kernel is based on
the density distribution of primate locations, and thus represents more intensively used
areas (Kernohan et al. 2001). The smoothing factor calculated for kernel estimations
was calculated in an iterative way as recommended by Kernohan et al . (2001), as the
least square cross validation method tends to underestimate it. We used the same
smoothing factor for analysis of the four groups. Fixed kernel home ranges were
defined as the 95% probability contour and core areas as the 50% probability contour.
We estimated distances between sleeping sites with the Spatial Statistics and Analyzing
Patterns extension and the Average Nearest Neighbor tool in Hawth’s Tools-Nearest
Neighbor extension for ArcGIS 9.3 (Beyer 2004). Despite the short sampling period,
1160 G. Velázquez-Vázquez et al.
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
8/18
we found that the home range size-sampling effort curves also reached an asymptote in
all groups (Fig. 2).
Distribution of Sleeping Sites and the Availability of Feeding Trees
To test if the distribution of sleeping sites was related to the availability of feeding trees,
we determined the number of feeding trees in the Moore neighborhood of sleeping
sites, together with a similar number of sites that were selected at random in the home
range of the community. The Moore neighborhood consists of nine cells in a lattice,
viz., one central cell (in our case, containing sleeping sites or locations chosen
randomly) and its eight surrounding cells (Weisstein 2005). To calculate these neigh-
borhoods, we first constructed a grid with a cell size of 1 ha on the map of home ranges
(Fig. 1). This cell size is smaller than the mean distance reportedly traveled between
feeding trees by spider monkeys (162 ± 86 m, rainy season, and 393 ± 54 m, dryseason: Nunes 1995). This allowed feeding trees to be spread over several cells, making
possible the estimation of neighboring effects. We then calculated the number of
feeding trees in each of the eight cells that neighbored the cells that contained sleeping
sites and in randomly selected cells (where no sleeping site had been detected) with the
Hawth’s Tools-Sampling Tools function in ArcGis 9.3 (Beyer 2004).
Statistical Analyses
To test for differences between logged and unlogged forests in terms of thedensity of sleeping sites and mean inter-sleeping site distances, we used Student
t -tests, which can be used with extremely small sample sizes (de Winter 2013).
To test for differences among sites in the size (DBH) of sleeping trees, we used
a one-way analysis of variance. We also used Student t -tests to evaluate if the
DBH of sleeping trees was significantly higher than the DBH of available trees
in the home range (one analysis per species). Lastly, we used simple logistic
regression to test if the presence of sleeping sites is positively related to the
abundance of feeding trees in its Moore neighborhood. These statistical analy-
ses were performed in SPSS v. 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago). We also used chi
square goodness-of-fit tests using HABUSE (Byers et al . 1984) to assess
whether the observed number of sleeping sites and feeding trees within and
outside core areas differed from to that expected by chance. We calculated the
expected values based on the area available within and outside core areas.
To identify spider monkey preferences for specific sleeping tree species, we
used Manly’s standardized selection index (Manly et al . 2002), which is one of
the simplest and most effective methods for measuring resource preference. It is
based on the selection ratio wi, which is defined as the proportional use divided
by the proportional availability of each resource: i.e., wi = oi/ π i, where oi is the
proportion of the sleeping trees of species i that are used, and π i is the
proportion of available trees of species i in the home range (see vegetation
sampling in the preceding text). A wi value >1 indicates positive selection,
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
9/18
Ethical Note
We obtained all of the necessary permits that were required for the present study.
Because our research involved an observational field study and did not involve any
contact with the animals, we met all ethical and legal requirements that were established by the Principles for the Ethical Treatment of Non-Human Primates of the International
Primatological Society. This study was also approved by the authorities from
ECOSUR, Université de Sherbrooke, Reserva de la Biosfera de Calakmul, and
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT-Mexico), and has the autho-
rization of the owners of the study area.
Results
Density of Sleeping Sites
In total, we recorded 74 sleeping sites in 668.7 ha of the fixed kernel polygon sampling
area, i.e., 0.11 sleeping sites/ha. The density of sleeping sites did not differ significantly
between logged and unlogged sites (t -test; t = 1.66, df = 1, P = 0.24). Estimated
densities were respectively 0.11 and 0.16 sleeping sites/ha in L1 and L2, and 0.04 and
0.10 sleeping sites/ha in C1 and C2.
Spatial Distribution of Sleeping Sites and Feeding Trees
In all study sites, sleeping sites had an aggregated distribution (C1: ANN = 0.74, P <
0.01; C2: ANN = 0.92, P = 0.05; L1: ANN = 0.43, P < 0.01; L2: ANN = 0.68, P <
0.01). Most sleeping sites (61%) were separated from one another by distances
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
10/18
Table I Home ranges and core areas (both in hectares) of spider monkeys in January – May and March –
July 2014 in two logged (L1 and L2) and two unlogged (C1 and C2) sites in Calakmul, Mexico
Sites Home
range
Core
area
In core areas χ2 P Outside core areas χ2 P
Obs. Exp.
C1 202.0 24.5 SS 8 (+) 2.66 10.7
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
11/18
Characteristics of Sleeping Sites
About half (51%) of the sleeping sites were composed of a single sleeping tree and
showed only one latrine (Table III). The mean (± SD) DBH of sleeping trees was 42.2 ±
21.9 cm, and did not differ among sites ( F 3,127 = 1.28, P = 0.28). In total, we recorded128 sleeping trees from 21 species, with more than half (55%) of the trees belonging to
three species: Bucida buceras L. (Combretaceae), Lonchocarpus castelloi Stanley
(Fabaceae), and Lysiloma latisiliquum (L.) Benth. (Fabaceae) (Table III). Spider mon-
keys actively selected some of the tree species, such as B. buceras and L. castelloi in
C1, an unidentified species (locally called Bcelestillo^), and L. latisiliquum in C2;
Talisia oliviformis (Kunth.) Radlk. (Sapindaceae) and Swietenia macrophylla
(Meliaceae) in L1; and Bcelestillo^ and L. castelloi in L2 (Table IV). In most cases,
sleeping trees exhibited a DBH greater than those of conspecific trees that were not
used as sleeping trees in their respective home ranges, yet the difference was not significant for all species (Table IV).
Table III Abundance and density of sleeping sites (SS) used by spider monkeys in January – May and March –
July 2014 in two unlogged (C1 and C2) and two logged (L1 and L2) sites in Calakmul, Mexico
Sites Abundance Density (SS/ha) Characteristics of SS Number (%) of SS
NST NL
C1 23 0.10 1 1 9 (39.1)
2 2 4 (17.4)
2 1 3 (13.0)
2 3 2 (8.7)
1 2 2 (8.7)
4 4 1 (4.4)
4 5 1 (4.4)
2 3 1 (4.4)
C2 7 0.04 1 1 6 (85.7)
4 4 1 (14.3)
L1 16 0.11 1 1 8 (50.0)
2 2 4 (25.0)
3 4 2 (12.5)
2 3 1 (6.3)
2 1 1 (6.3)
L2 28 0.16 1 1 15 (53.6)
3 3 6 (21.4)2 1 4 (14.3)
2 2 2 (7.1)
4 4 1 (3.6)
We classified SS in each forest site based on the number of sleeping trees (NST) and latrines (NL) that
composed each SS and we then indicate the number (and %) of SS in each class.
1164 G. Velázquez-Vázquez et al.
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
12/18
Table IV Use and availability of tree species for spider monkey sleeping sites in January – May and March –
July 2014 in two unlogged (C1 and C2) and two logged (L1 and L2) sites in Calakmul, Mexico
Sites and tree species No. of trees
(and density)
wi Mean DBH (and range) (cm) t P
Used Available Used Available
C1
Sickingia salvadorensis 1 (4.95) 7 (0.23) 0.56 30.6 17.7 (12.0 – 27.7) — —
Swietenia macrophylla 7 (3.56) 10 (0.33) 2.78 40.2 (28.3 – 51.9) 37.7 (28.0 – 45.2) 0.68 0.50
Bucida buceras 9 (4.45) 4 (0.13) 8.94 59.5 (25.5 – 114) 51.4 (36.3 – 83.7) 0.54 0.59
Lonchocarpus castelloi 4 (1.98) 4 (0.13) 3.98 43.9 (40.4 – 47.4) 21.6 (12.4 – 33.1) 4.17 0.03
Pouteria spp. 4 (1.98) 60 (2.00) 0.27 33.5 (29.9 – 35.0) 17.0 (10.2 – 31.2) 5.85 0.00
Caesalpinia gaumeri 6 (2.97) 7 (0.23) 3.41 36.4 (23.9 –
42.0) 32.7 (11.5 –
67.7) 0.48 0.63 Brosimum alicastrum 1 (4.95) 46 (1.53) 0.09 49 27 (10.2 – 151.8) — —
Exothea diphylla 4 (1.98) 5 (0.17) 3.18 26.3 (22.9 – 33.4) 15.4 (10.5 – 20.7) 3.48 0.01
Ficus cotinifolia 2 (9.90) 7 (0.23) 1.14 29.1 (22.0 – 36.3) 28.4 (10.8 – 50.0) 0.06 0.95
Cosmocalyx spectabilis 1 (4.95) 4 (0.13) 0.99 22.1 24.2 (18.4 – 35.0) — —
Vitex gaumeri 1 (4.95) 5 (0.17) 0.80 82.1 24.0 (12.4 – 37.2) — —
C2
Lonchocarpus castelloi 1 (6.18) 16 (0.06) 0.15 24.4 28.9 (10.6 – 57.2) — —
Lysiloma latisiliquum 3 (1.85) 3 (0.01) 2.50 32.7 (28.0 – 41.2) 48.2 (39.2 – 63.6) 1.76 0.15
Unidentified 4 (2.47) 1 (0.00) 10.00 37.8 (25.9 – 61.8) 21.1 — —
Logged sites
L1
Brosimum alicastrum 5 (3.46) 40 (1.33) 0.40 51.9 (30.4 – 72.9) 32.2 (10.2 – 76.4) 2.41 0.02
Lonchocarpus castelloi 7 (4.85) 8 (0.27) 2.81 32.4 (30.2 – 39.2) 30.9 (10.5 – 46.3) 0.29 0.77
Talisia oliviformis. 2 (2.00) 3 (0.10) 3.21 27.1 (23.4 – 29.9) 25.5 (14.5 – 42.0) 1.86 0.86
Bucida buceras 3 (2.00) 7 (0.23) 1.37 33.7 (25.4 – 40.7) 30.8 (15.6 – 65.8) 0.26 0.79
Ficus sp. 4 (2.77) 6 (0.20) 2.14 72.9 (29.6 – 142.6) 18.6 (10.2 – 29.6) 2.47 0.03
Swietenia macrophylla 3 (2.00) 3 (0.10) 3.21 36.9 (28.0 – 42.7) 38.4 (35.0 – 43.3) 0.29 0.78
Lysiloma latisiliquum 1 (6.93) 2 (0.07) 1.60 148.0 34.1 (30.1 – 38.2) — —
Exothea diphylla 1 (6.93) 8 (0.27) 0.40 31.6 16.9 (10.2 – 31.8) — —
Protium copal 1 (6.93) 13 (0.43) 0.24 14.3 18.9 (10.3 – 41.5) — —
L2
Manilkara zapota 1 (6.23) 93 (0.40) 0.12 38.6 34.4 (10.2 – 78.8) — —
Bucida buceras 4 (2.49) 24 (0.10) 1.81 44.2 (22.5 – 90.5) 35.1 (11.3 – 87.9) 0.76 0.45
Caelsalpinia mollis 2 (1.25) — 26.5 (23.1 – 29.9) — — —
Caesalpinia gaumeri 1 (6.23) 4 (0.02) 2.71 23.2 48.1 (34.3 – 62.0) — —
Ficus sp. 3 (1.87) 59 (0.26) 0.55 51.3 (20.0 – 79.3) 34.7 (12.2 – 153.0) 1.26 0.21
Licaria peckii 1 (6.23) 12 (0.05) 0.90 30.0 19.7 (10.2 – 39.4) — —
Lonchocarpus castelloi 3 (1.87) 2 (0.01) 16.26 30.5 (24.5 – 34.5) 29.5 (19.3 – 38.8) 0.11 0.91
Lysiloma latisiliquum 10 (6.23) 12 (0.05) 9.04 41.7 (16.2 – 53.8) 32.3 (12.1 – 61.0) 1.51 0.14
Unidentified 4 (2.49) 1 (0.00) 43.37 37.8 (25.9 – 61.8) 21.1 — —
Pouteria sp. 1 (6.23) 130 (0.57) 0.08 24.1 15.0 (10.0 – 40.3) — —
Sleeping Sites of Ateles geoffroyi 1165
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
13/18
Discussion
Our findings reveal that there are 0.11 sleeping sites/ha in the study region;
almost all of them (97.2%) were located in medium-stature semievergreen forest.
In all study sites, sleeping sites showed an aggregated distribution, particularly incore areas within their home range, which contained a greater density of feeding
trees. About half of the sleeping sites were composed of one single large tree
from a small number of tree species, particularly from Lonchocarpus castelloi,
Bucida buceras, and Lysiloma latisiliquum. These three species represented one-
third of the authorized volume for logging during the period when the sites were
logged, and in 2007 they made up 50% of the harvested volume. However,
contrary to our predictions, the density, distribution, and composition of sleeping
sites did not differ between logged and unlogged forests, suggesting that current
levels of timber extraction had no effect on the sleeping site characteristics that
we measured.
The diet of spider monkeys is composed mainly of fruits (Di Fiore et al . 2008;
González-Zamora et al . 2009), the availability of which is strongly variable in time and
space. To reduce travel costs and increase their foraging efficiency, spider monkeys
usually sleep close to their feeding areas (Chapman et al . 1989). This means that the
density and distribution of sleeping sites can be highly variable across sites (Asensio
et al . 2012a ; González-Zamora et al . 2012), depending on the distribution and avail-
ability of food resources (Asensio et al . 2012b; Chapman et al . 1989; González-Zamora
et al . 2015). Consistent with these ideas, we found that the density of sleeping sites was
strongly variable across sites (ranging from 0.04 to 0.16 sleeping sites/ha), but most
sleeping sites were distributed in medium-stature semievergreen forest, which is the
vegetation type with the greatest fruit availability, i.e., with larger trees and a greater
number of plant species consumed by mammals, in the region (Reyna-Hurtado et al .
2009). Also, the occurrence of sleeping sites was positively related to the density of
feeding trees, and most sleeping sites were found in the cores of home ranges, which
Table IV (continued)
Sites and tree species No. of trees
(and density)
wi Mean DBH (and range) (cm) t P
Used Available Used Available
Protium copal 1 (6.23) 37 (0.16) 0.29 19.3 16.3 (10.2 – 85.6) — —
Pseudobombax ellipticum 3 (1.87) 11 (0.01) 2.96 69.4 (52.2 – 80.3) 69.4 (12.8 – 80.3) 2.49 0.02
Simarouba glauca 1 (6.23) 9 (0.04) 1.20 29.2 20.0 (11.7 – 47.1) — —
Swartzia cubensis 2 (1.25) 13 (0.06) 1.67 26.7 (23.8 – 29.6) 33.3 (12.1 – 77.2) 0.48 0.63
Swietenia macrophylla 1 (6.23) 5 (0.00) 2.17 51.4 31.6 (18.9 – 43.8) — —
The density of trees is expressed as the number of individuals/sampled surface area. A Manly index (wi) in
bold indicates selection by spider monkeys. We also indicate the results of the Student ’s t — test used to identify
differences in diameter at breast height (DBH) between used and available trees (the cases in which thisanalysis was not possible are indicated with a dash).
1166 G. Velázquez-Vázquez et al.
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
14/18
The density of sleeping sites in our study area (0.11 sleeping sites/ha) was far
below the figures reported by González-Zamora et al . (2012) for the Lacandona
rainforest, Mexico (0.25 sleeping sites/ha). This may be related to the fact that spatial and temporal variation in fruit availability is greater in medium-stature
semievergreen forests than in rainforests (A. Aguilar-Melo et al ., unpub. data),
reinforcing the observation that sleeping sites are spatially more dispersed in
semievergreen forests than in rainforests. In fact, the temporal scarcity of fruiting
trees in seasonal forests can lead spider monkeys to stay near feeding trees until
they are depleted (Chapman 1987). This may explain why the density of sleeping
sites is notably lower in seasonal medium-stature semievergreen forests than in
nonseasonal tropical rainforests. Further, we cannot rule out the possibility that
differences in sleeping site densities were caused by differences in the definitionof sleeping site. González-Zamora et al . (2012) considered all latrines that were
located
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
15/18
Ecological and Conservation Implications
This study supports the idea that sleeping sites are an important resource for spider
monkeys. They do not select sleeping sites at random, but use large trees from a small
subset of tree species, the architecture of which may provide them protection from predators and adverse climatic conditions (Aquino and Encarnación 1986; González-
Zamora et al . 2012; Reichard 1998). Also, sleeping sites are strategically located near
available food resources to increase foraging efficiency (Asensio et al . 2012a ;
Chapman 1989; González-Zamora et al . 2014; Mendes-Pontes and Lira 2005; Smith
et al . 2007; Teichroeb et al . 2012). In fact, sleeping sites showed a clumped distribu-
tion, and most were separated from one another by a distance
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
16/18
Ariyanti, N. S., Bos, M. M., Kartawinata, K., Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. S., Guhardja, E., & Gradstein, S. R. (2008).
Bryophytes on tree trunks in natural forests, selectively logged forests and cacao agroforests in Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 141, 2516 – 2527.
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Andresen, E., Bravo, S. P., & Stevenson, P. R. (2015). Seed dispersal by howler
monkeys: Current knowledge, conservation implications, and future directions. In M. Kowalewski, P. A.
Garber, L. Cortés-Ortiz, B. Urbani, & D. Youlatos (Eds.), Howler monkeys: Behavior, ecology and conservation (pp. 111 – 139). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Asensio, N., Lusseau, D., Schaffner, C. M., & Aureli, F. (2012a). Spider monkeys use high-quality core areas
in a tropical dry forest. Journal of Zoology, 287 , 250 – 258.
Asensio, N., Schaffner, C. M., & Aureli, F. (2012b). Variability in core areas of spider monkeys ( Ateles
geoffroyi) in a tropical dry forest in Costa Rica. Primates, 53, 147 – 156.
Asner, G. P., Knapp, D. E., Broadbent, E. N., Oliveira, P. J. C., Keller, M., & Silva, J. N. (2005). Selective
logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 310, 480 – 481.
Asner, G. P., Rudel, T. K., Aide, T. M., Defries, R., & Emerson, R. (2009). A contemporary assessment of
change in humid tropical forests. Conservation Biology, 23, 1386 – 1395.
Aureli, F., & Schaffner, C. M. (2008). Social interactions, social relationships and the social system of spider
monkeys. In C. J. Campbell (Ed.), Spider monkeys: Behavior, ecology and evolution of the genus Ateles
(pp. 236 – 265). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, N. J., Phillips, O. L., Lewis, S. L., Hill, J. K., Edwards, D. P., Tawatao, N. B., et al. (2010). The high
value of logged tropical forests: Lessons from northern Borneo. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 985 –
997.
Beyer, H. L. (2004). Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools (Accessed
September 15, 2014).
Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., & Davies, Z. G. (2015). Reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity
conservation in tropical forests using reduced-impact logging. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 379 – 388.
Bolland, L. P., Dren, A. P., & Vergara-Tenorio, C. (2006). Analysis of a natural resources management system
in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, 223 – 241.
Bravo, S. P. (2012). The impact of seed dispersal by black and gold howler monkeys on forest regeneration.
Ecological Research, 27 , 311 –
321.Brown, K. A., & Gurevitch, J. (2004). Long-term impacts of logging on forest diversity in Madagascar.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101, 6045 – 6049.
Byers, C. R., Steinhorst, R. K., & Krausman, P. R. (1984). Clarification of a technique for analysis of
utilization-availability data. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48, 1050 – 1053.
Chapman, C. A. (1987). Patch use and patch depletion by the spider and howling monkeys of Santa Rosa
National Park, Costa Rica. Behaviour, 105, 99 – 116.
Chapman, C. A. (1989). Spider monkey sleeping sites: Use and availability. American Journal of Primatology,
18, 53 – 60.
Chapman, C. A., Balcom, S. R., Gillespie, T. R., Skorupa, J. P., & Struhsaker, T. T. (2000). Long-term effects
of logging on African primate communities: A 28-year comparison from Kibale National Park, Uganda.
Conservation Biology, 14, 207 – 217.
Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., & McLaughlin, R. L. (1989). Multiple central place foraging by spider
monkeys: Travel consequences of using many sleeping sites. Oecologia, 79, 506 – 511.
Chaves, O. M., Stoner, K. E., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., & Estrada, A. (2011). Effectiveness of spider monkeys
( Ateles geoffroyi vellerosus) as seed dispersers in continuous and fragmented rainforests in southern
Mexico. International Journal of Primatology, 32, 177 – 192.
Connell, J. H. (1971). On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine
animals and in rainforest trees. In P. J. den Boer & D. R. Gradwell (Eds.), Dynamics of populations (pp.
298 – 313). Wageningen: Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
Cui, L. W., Quan, R. C., & Xiao, W. (2006). Sleeping sites of black-and-white snub-nosed monkeys
( Rhinopithecus bieti) at Baima Snow Mountain, China. Journal of Zoology, 270, 192 – 198.
de Winter, J. C. F. (2013). Using the Student ’s t -test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 18. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=10.Di Bitetti, M. S., Luengos Vidal, E. M., Baldovino, M. C., & Benesovsky, V. (2000). Sleeping site preferences
in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella nigritus). American Journal of Primatology, 274, 257 – 274.
Di Fiore, A., Link, A., & Dew, J. L. (2008). Diets of wild spider monkeys. In C. J. Campbell (Ed.), Spider
monkeys: Behavior, ecology and evolution of the genus Ateles (pp. 81 – 137). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Fredericksen, N. J., & Fredericksen, T. S. (2002). Terrestrial wildlife responses to logging and fire in a
Bolivian tropical humid forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 27 – 38.
Sleeping Sites of Ateles geoffroyi 1169
http://www.spatialecology.com/htoolshttp://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=10http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=10http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
17/18
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council A.C.) (1996). FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship. FSC-STD-
01-001 (version 4-0) EN. https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htm (Accessed October 6, 2015).
García, G., Palacio-Prieto, J. L., & Ortíz-Pérez, M. A. (2002). Reconocimiento geomorfológico e hidrográfico
de la Reserva de la Biosfera de Calakmul, México. Investigaciones Geográficas, 48, 7 – 23.
González-Zamora, A., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Chaves, O. M., Sánchez-López, S., Stoner, K. E., & Riba-
Hernández, P. (2009). Diet of spider monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi) in Mesoamerica: Current knowledge andfuture directions. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 8 – 20.
González-Zamora, A., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Escobar, F., Oyama, K., Aureli, F., & Stoner, K. E. (2015).
Sleeping tree fidelity of the spider monkeys shapes community-level seed rain patterns in continuous and
fragmented rain forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 31, 305 – 313.
González-Zamora, A., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Escobar, F., Rös, M., Oyama, K., Ibarra-Manríquez, G., et al.
(2014). Contagious deposition of seeds in spider monkeys sleeping trees limits effective seed dispersal in
fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE, 9, e89346.
González-Zamora, A., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Oyama, K., Sork, V., Chapman, C. A., & Stoner, K. E. (2012).
Sleeping sites and latrines of spider monkeys in continuous and fragmented rainforests: implications for
seed dispersal and forest regeneration. PLoS ONE, 7 , e46852.
Gutiérrez-Granados, G., & Dirzo, R. (2010). Indirect effects of timber extraction on plant recruitment and
diversity via reductions in abundance of frugivorous spider monkeys. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 26 ,
45 – 52.
Heydon, M. J., & Bulloh, P. (1997). Mousedeer densities in a tropical rainforest: The impact of selective
logging. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 484 – 496.
Heymann, E. W. (1995). Sleeping habits of tamarins, Saguinus mystax and Saguinus fuscicollis (Mammalia:
Primates: Callitrichidae), in north-eastern Peru. Journal of Zoology, 237 , 211 – 226.
Janzen, D. H. (1970). Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist, 104,
501 – 528.
Johns, A. D. (1992). Effects of Bselective^ timber extraction on rain forest structure and composition and some
consequences for frugivores and folivores. Biotropica, 20, 31 – 37.
Kernohan, B. J., Gitzen, R. A., & Millspaugh, J. J. (2001). Analysis of animal space use and movement. In J.
J. Millspaugh & J. M. Marzluff (Eds.), Radio tracking and animal populations (pp. 125 –
166). San Diego:Academic Press.
Malhi, Y., Gardner, T. A., Goldsmith, G. R., Silman, M. R., & Zelazowski, P. (2014). Tropical forests in the
Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 39, 125 – 159.
Manly, B. F., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L., & Erickson, W. P. (2002). Resource selection
by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.
Mendes-Pontes, A. R., & Lira, S. M. (2005). Sleeping sites of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) in
defaunated urban forest fragments: A strategy to maximize food intake. Journal of Zoology, 266 , 55 – 63.
Milton, K. (1980). The foraging strategy of howler monkeys. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mitchell, A. (2005). The ESRI guide to GIS analysis, Vol. 2: Spatial Measurements and Statistics. Redlands:
ESRI Press.
Nunes, A. (1995). Foraging and ranging patterns in white-bellied spider monkeys. Folia Primatologica, 65,
85 – 99.
Plumptre, A. J., & Reynolds, V. (1994). The effect of selective logging on the primate populations in the
budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 631 – 641.
Pozo, W. E. (2005). Caracterización de los dormideros usados por Ateles belzebuth en el parque Nacional
Yasuní, Ecuador. Neotropical Primates, 13, 27 – 34.
Putz, F. E., Blate, G. M., Redford, K. H., Fimbel, R., & Robinson, J. (2001). Tropical forest management and
conservation of biodiversity: An overview. Conservation Biology, 15, 7 – 20.
Ramos-Fernández, G., Smith-Aguilar, S. E., Schaffner, C. M., Vick, L. G., & Aureli, F. (2013). Site fidelity in
space use by spider monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi) in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. PLoS ONE, 8, e62813.
Ramos-Fernández, G., & Wallace, R. B. (2008). Spider monkey conservation in the twenty-first century:
Recognizing risks and opportunities. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Spider monkeys. The biology, behavior and
ecology of the genus Ateles (pp. 351 –
372). New York: Cambridge University Press.Reichard, U. (1998). Sleeping sites, sleeping places, and presleep behavior of gibbons ( Hylobates lar ).
American Journal of Primatology, 62, 35 – 62.
Reyna-Hurtado, R., Rojas-Flores, E., & Tanner, G. W. (2009). Home range and habitat preferences of white-
lipped peccary groups (Tayassu pecari) in a seasonal tropical forest of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
Journal of Mammalogy, 90, 1199 – 1209.
Russo, S. E., & Augspurger, C. K. (2004). Aggregated seed dispersal by spider monkeys limits recruitment to
clumped patterns in Virola calophylla. Ecology Letters, 7 , 1058 – 1067.
1170 G. Velázquez-Vázquez et al.
https://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htmhttps://ic.fsc.org/principles-and-criteria.34.htm
-
8/18/2019 Velazquez-Vazquez Etal 2015 IJP SleepingSites
18/18
Russo, S. E., & Chapman, C. A. (2011). Primate seed dispersal: Linking behavioral ecology with forest
community structure. In C. J. Campbell, A. F. Fuentes, K. C. MacKinnon, M. Panger, & S. Bearders
(Eds.), Primates in perspective (pp. 523 – 534). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russo, S. E., Portnoy, S., & Augspurger, C. K. (2006). Incorporating animal behavior into seed dispersal
models: Implications for seed shadows. Ecology, 87 , 3160 – 3174.
Smith, A. C., Knogge, C., Huck, M., Löttker, P., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., & Heymann, E. W. (2007). Long-term patterns of sleeping site use in wild saddleback (Saguinus fuscicollis) and mustached tamarins
(S. mystax): Effects of foraging, thermoregulation, predation, and resource defense constraints. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 134, 340 – 353.
Snook, L. K. (2003). Regeneration, growth, and sustainability of mahogany in Mexico's Yucatán forests. In A.
E. Lugo, J. C. Figueroa Colón, & M. Alayón (Eds.), Big-leaf mahogany: Genetics, ecology, and
management (pp. 169 – 192). New York: Springer.
Teichroeb, J. A., Holmes, J. A., & Sicotte, P. (2012). Use of sleeping trees by ursine colobus monkeys
(Colobus vellerosus) demonstrates the importance of nearby food. Primates, 53, 287 – 296.
Vester, H. F. M., Lawrence, D., Eastman, J. R., Turner, B. L., II, Calmé, S., Pozo, C., et al. (2007). Land
change in the southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve: Effects on habitat and biodiversity.
Ecological Applications, 17 , 989 – 1003.
Weisstein, E. W. (2005). Moore neighborhood. MathWorld-A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MooreNeighborhood.html (Accessed September 15, 2015).
Youlatos, D. (2002). Positional behavior of black spider monkeys ( Ateles paniscus) in French Guiana.
International Journal of Primatology, 23, 1071 – 1093.
Sleeping Sites of Ateles geoffroyi 1171
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MooreNeighborhood.htmlhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/MooreNeighborhood.htmlhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/MooreNeighborhood.htmlhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/MooreNeighborhood.html