Geographic comparison of plant genera used in frugivory among the pitheciidsCacajao,Callicebus,Chiropotes, andPithecia

Abstract

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.

Mammals of the Saracá-Taquera National Forest, northwestern Pará, Brazil

“…The bearded saki (Chiropotes sagulatus), bearded capuchin (Sapajus apella), Guianan red howler monkey (Alouatta macconnelli (Elliot, 1910)) and the Guianan spider monkey (Ateles paniscus (Linnaeus, 1758)) were the species encountered most frequently. The ecology of the bearded saki and Martin's bare-face tamarin (Saguinus martinsi (Thomas, 1912)) has been monitored in STNF since 2009, and a number of important findings in the area have already been published (Barnett et al 2012;Melo et al 2013;Boyle et al 2015;Shaffer et al 2015).…”

A molar microwear texture analysis of pitheciid primates

“…Seeds make up the greatest component of Chiropotes diet, with Norconk () reporting 61.3% of its annual dietary composition devoted to seeds. These seeds come from many species, and the variety of fruit genera found in the diet of Chiropotes is greater than those of other pitheciids (Boyle et al, ). Bearded sakis supplement their diets with fruit flesh (Kinzey & Norconk, ) and the occasional flower (Norconk et al, ).…”

“…Still, seeds account for 75% of Pithecia's annual diet (Palminteri et al, ), and both pitheciines share non‐dental adaptations for hard object feeding, including enlarged temporalis and masseter muscles (Kinzey, , , Kinzey & Norconk, , ). Furthermore, in pairwise comparisons of fruit genera ingested, among pitheciids, Chiropotes and Pithecia were shown to have the greatest number in common while Callicebus had the least (Boyle et al, ).…”

Pitheciid research comes of age: Past puzzles, current progress, and future priorities

“…Boyle et al [] provide the most extensive assessment to date of fruit used by the four pitheciid genera across their entire geographic distribution. Chiropotes and Pithecia had the most similar fruit lists, followed closely by Chiropotes and Cacajao .…”

“…The contributions in this issue illustrate the current movement toward hypothesis‐driven research in pitheciid studies. In addition to increasing knowledge of pitheciid behavioral ecology, several articles in this issue provide positive examples of the utility of large‐scale data sharing and collaboration in science [Boyle et al, ; Shaffer et al, ]. Yet, despite these advancements, many gaps in our knowledge of pitheciid biology remain.…”