No abstract

The benefits to researchers of capturing and collaring free-ranging primates are numerous, but so are the actual and potential costs to the individuals. We aimed to 1) evaluate quantitatively the possible demographic long-term costs of radio-collaring a free-ranging primate species, and 2) evaluate qualitatively the costs to the subjects and the overall benefits to the research program that results from monitoring a large number of groups with collared individuals during many years. Between 2000 and 2009, we captured, recaptured, and radio-collared 146 owl monkeys (Aotus azarai) to study the behavior, demography, and genetics of the species. To evaluate the potential long-term costs of the collaring procedures on the population, we compared the demographic composition of groups (n=20) in our core study area with those of undisturbed groups (n=20) in a control area within the same forest. Groups in both areas ranged in size between 2 and 5 individuals. Surprisingly, group size tended to be larger among the study groups owing to more infants and juveniles in those groups than in the control groups. The benefits to the research program have included, among others, the reliable identification of individuals, increased sample sizes, the recovery of specimens, studies of dispersal, outreach activities, and conservation education. Still, some of the benefits will become tangible only when the project persists on time; is fully approved and supported by local authorities; and has broad community participation, as well as Int J Primatol (2011) 32:69-82

Small-scale ecological variables, such as forest structure and resource availability, may affect primate groups at the scale of group home ranges, thereby influencing group demography and life-history traits. We evaluated the complete territories of 4 groups of owl monkeys (Aotus azarai), measuring and identifying all trees and lianas with a diameter at breast height ≥10 cm (n=7485). We aimed to determine all food sources available to each of those groups and to relate food availability to group demographics. For analyses, we considered the core areas of the home range separately from the 80% home range. Our results showed that groups occupy territories that differ in size, species evenness, stem density, and food species' stem abundances. The territories differed in the availability of fruits, flowers, and leaves, and most fruit sources were unevenly distributed in space. Differences among territories were more pronounced for the whole range than they were for the core areas. Despite marked differences among territories in structure and food availability, the number of births and age at natal dispersal were quite similar, but 1 group had a consistently lower group size. Our results suggest that owl Int monkey groups occupy territories of different structure and composition and food availability, yet ones that contain similar quantities of, mostly, dry season fruit sources. We propose that groups inhabit these territories to overcome food shortages safely during limiting periods, specifically the dry season, in this markedly seasonal forest. The occupancy and defense of territories with strict boundaries may therefore be associated with food resources available during limiting seasons that may be the ones influencing life history patterns and demographics.

In addition to environmental factors, social variables such as group size may play an important role in explaining primate ranging patterns. In this study we investigated range sizes, site fidelity, and range overlaps of owl monkeys (Aotus azarae) in Northern Argentina. We calculated the size of home range and core areas for 18 groups in our study area. For the six most intensively studied groups we tested whether precipitation as a crude proxy for food availability or group size had an influence on range size, assessed the degree of site fidelity by quantifying overlaps of annual ranges and core areas, and calculated the amount of range overlap between neighboring groups for each year. We used the kernel density estimation method to calculate home ranges as 90% kernel and core areas as 50% kernel. Home range size (mean ± SD) was 6.2 ha (± 1.8) and core area size 1.9 (± 0.6). Rainfall and group size were not statistically significant predictors of range sizes. Site fidelity was high, with a range overlap of 82% (± 11) between consecutive years. Neighboring groups overlapped over 48% (± 15) of the outer parts of their group ranges and 11% (± 15) of their core areas. We found no evidence that larger groups occupy larger areas than smaller groups, suggesting that food availability might be above a critical threshold for owl monkeys so that larger groups do not need to extend their foraging areas to meet their energy requirements. Our findings indicate that ranges remain stable over several years as groups visit the same locations of fruit trees within their range. We showed that owl monkeys exhibit a considerable degree of range overlap. However, we suggest that this range overlap might be spatial rather than temporal, which maximizes access to clumped feeding resources in overlapping areas that are used at distinct times, while excluding other males from access to females in exclusively used areas. In addition to environmental factors, social variables such as group size may play an important role 22 in explaining primate ranging patterns. In this study we investigated range sizes, site fidelity and 23 range overlaps of owl monkeys (Aotus azarae) in Northern Argentina. We calculated the size of 24 home range and core areas for 18 groups in our study area. For the six most intensively studied 25 groups we tested whether precipitation as a crude proxy for food availability or group size had an 26 influence on range size, assessed the degree of site fidelity by quantifying overlaps of annual ranges 27 and core areas and calculated the amount of range overlap between neighboring groups for each 28 year. We used the kernel density estimation method to calculate home ranges as 90% kernel and 29 core areas as 50% kernel. Home range size (mean ± s.d.) was 6.2 ha (± 1.8) and core area size 1.9 (± 30 0.6). Rainfall and group size were not statistically significant predictors of range sizes. Site fidelity 31 was high with a range overlap of 82% (± 11) between consecutive years. Neighboring groups 32 overlapped over...

No abstract