One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

This study assesses the impact of hunting on the densities of nonhuman primates in two indigenous Tikuna territories (Mocagua and San Martín), overlapping Amacayacu National Park in the Colombian Amazon. Large-bodied primates were once favored prey by Tikunas, but are now rarely hunted owing to the diminishing primate populations. We evaluate the effect of a hunting ban on woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagothricha) by the residents of Mocagua, using qualitative and quantitative methods. Hunting records showed that from February 2005 to February 2009, a total of 25,142 kg of mammal bushmeat were harvested in Mocagua and San Martín. Primates constituted 345 kg of the total harvest. From 223 kg of large-bodied primates extracted for subsistence purposes, 160 kg were hunted in San Martín and 64 kg in Mocagua. Large-bodied primates made up 70% of the total primate biomass in Mocagua (398 kg/km(2)) and 22% in San Martín (199 kg/km(2)). From dietary records, we found bushmeat constituted 30% of protein consumption in Mocagua and 37% in San Martín. Primates were absent in records from Mocagua, and appeared only three times in those from San Martín suggesting inconsistencies with hunting data. Despite its moderate consumption, bushmeat was identified as a highly valued food source during focus group activities. Primate pet-keeping and part utilization were observed in San Martín but not in Mocagua, possibly as a consequence of fewer primates being hunted. We suggest that Mocagua provides an example of how community-based conservation strategies can be achieved, where opportunities for employment in tourism and alternative food sources are available.

Understanding the capacity for humans to share resources (crops, wild foods, space) with large-bodied wildlife is vital for biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing, and requires comprehensive examination of their temporal interactions over fine spatial scales. We combined ecological (plant identification, wild fruit availability plots, animal fecal and trace sampling) and social science (free-listing, semi-structured interviews, participant observation) methods to systematically and simultaneously collect data on the availability and selection of fruits from wild plants by humans and critically endangered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus), a national conservation flagship species at Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. Within an area of 12.7 km 2 , we demonstrate that local people's monthly use of wild fruits was driven by its overall availability in the habitat, whereas chimpanzees, as ripe fruit specialists, sought out fruits year-round. Humans and chimpanzees overlap in the selection of fruits from at least 27 wild plant species. The ranked use of fruits from species which were used by both chimpanzees and humans was significantly positively correlated, suggesting they preferentially target fruits of the same wild plant species. Each month, humans and chimpanzees selected three to six of the same wild fruit species. Chimpanzees fed significantly more on wild fruit species that were available for longer periods, with no effect of that plant species density. Neither plant density nor number of fruiting months impacted human selection of fruit from a plant species, suggesting people might seek out desired resources irrespective of a species' abundance in the landscape. These findings are important for the development of a shared knowledge base to establish culturally relevant conservation management strategies. We recommend the active management of plant species that are exploited for their fruits by both humans and chimpanzees at Cantanhez National Park, including figs (Ficus spp.), oil-palm (Elaeis guineensis) and velvet tamarind (Dialium guineense). This can be achieved through supporting traditional resource management practices and the strategic replanting of

No abstract