Monkeys and Apes as Animals and Humans: Ethno-Primatology in Nigeria’s Taraba Region

Nyanganji, Gilbert; Fowler, Andrew; McNamara, Aylin; Sommer, Volker

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7403-7_4

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is likely that monkeyhuman interface in rural and hunting communities facilitates higher rate of monkey-human contacts than in urban settings. This is also corroborated by another study in north eastern Nigeria (Nyanganji et al, 2011). Our finding however suggests that frequent and close contact does not necessarily imply risky contact since many respondents reported having frequent encounter with monkeys without being scratched or bitten.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The support for monkey meat eating as well as monkey poaching on campus is not good news for conservationists, since bushmeat hunting is a threat to wildlife conservation and increases risk of zoonotic infections in humans (Friant et al, 2015). In fact, monkeys are more vulnerable than other wildlife because, apart from serving as source of meat they are most frequently used as medicine by locals (Nyanganji et al, 2011;Friant et al, 2015). It was observed that respondents regarded monkeys as a nuisance and they did not agree to keeping of monkeys as pets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Nigeria, the scenario is not totally different. The frequent hunting/poaching, trade in bush meat and exotic pet ownership puts Nigeria in similar, though less precarious situations, when compared with countries in south and south east Asia and in the south Pacific Islands where monkey temples abound with more frequent and closer interactions between non-human primates and humans (Conly & Johnston, 2008;Nyanganji et al, 2011;Friant et al, 2015). The monkeys, whose population was recently estimated at 68 animals, have been in existence on the site before the establishment of the institution (Onadeko et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human – monkey interaction on a University campus in Nigeria: An avenue for zoonotic disease transmission at the human wildlife interface?

Ogunro¹,

Olugasa²,

Olaleru³

et al. 2017

Sokoto J. Vet. Sc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monkeys are potential sources of infectious diseases to humans. Mona monkeys frequently gain access to human dwellings within the University of Lagos campus. This study was conducted to assess the level of human-monkey interaction with a view to determining if such interaction will create an avenue for zoonotic disease transmission from monkeys to humans resident in this human-wildlife interface. Information on frequency and closeness of human -monkey interaction was gathered from 395 respondents using a semi-structured questionnaire and indepth interviews. These were used to determine respondents' attitude towards the monkeys as well as their knowledge on monkey related zoonoses. Responses from the questionnaire were entered into and analysed using EPI INFO TM version 7.2.0.1 statistical software. Categorical data were summarised as tables and bar chart. Chi Square, Fisher exact tests and binary logistic regression were used to test for significance and deduce relationships among variables. Statistical significance was determined at 95% Confidence interval. Most of the respondents (63.5%) were undergraduates; while 70.1% of all respondents were residents on campus. Only 19.8% and 6.6% of the respondents had close and risky contacts respectively, while 11.1% and 8.3% had negligible and minimal contacts respectively. Majority of the respondents (69.1%) had inadequate knowledge about monkey related zoonoses Only 39% were aware that monkeys could transmit disease to humans and 2% believed that monkeys could not transmit diseases to humans. Campus residents have significantly closer contacts with monkeys than visitors (p<0.05, OR=0.32). Residents were three times more likely to have had any form of contact with monkeys than non-residents. There was no significant difference between the frequency of risky human-monkey contacts among visitors and residents. The low level of awareness about zoonotic disease among the respondents could be ameliorated through public health awareness campaigns by health workers and conservationists.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human – monkey interaction on a University campus in Nigeria: An avenue for zoonotic disease transmission at the human wildlife interface?

Ogunro¹,

Olugasa²,

Olaleru³

et al. 2017

Sokoto J. Vet. Sc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is well understood for human populations. For instance, whether or not certain types of meat are eaten (beef, pork, dog, monkeys) can serve as an important signifier of group identity (Douglas, 1966;Nyanganji et al, 2011). The same dynamic may apply to chimpanzee communities -quite independent from whether or not the prevalence of extractive foraging is brought about by opportunity or necessity (Fox et al, 1999) or reflects a strategy to acquire fallback food or preferred food (Harrison and Marshall, 2011).…”

Section: Social Dimensions Of Diet?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustained myrmecophagy in Nigerian chimpanzees: Preferred or fallback food?

Sommer

Buba

Jesus

et al. 2016

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: At some sites across Africa, chimpanzees consume army ants, often aided by stick-tools, although consumption frequencies vary greatly. Other populations do not eat these insects at all, despite apparent abundance. The relative importance of myrmecophagy 2 for chimpanzee diet therefore remains unclear. Major functional hypotheses consider army ants either as a preferred food or a fallback fare when preferred foods are scarce. We test these hypotheses for chimpanzees at Gashaka / Nigeria, where chimpanzees consume army ants much more frequently than elsewhere.Methods: Long-term records on seasonality of climate and availability of fruit as the chimpanzees' preferred staple food are compared to rates of recovered army ant dipping wands and army ant remains in faeces.Results: Despite strict seasonality in terms of rainfall and fruit abundance, myrmecophagy does not negatively correlate with fruit availability. Instead, ant eating is sustained year round at high levels, with 44% of faeces containing remains. Conclusions:Results contradict the fallback hypothesis and support the hypothesis of ants as preferred food. Nevertheless, ant-meals can normally provide only negligible amounts of nutrients. At Gashaka, however, nutritional yield may be significant, given that an ant dipping session provides 13 mg of dry weight to a chimpanzee. The species exclusively eaten here, Dorylus rubellus, might be particularly aggressive, thus resulting in greater harvesting success than elsewhere. Army ants may thus serve as a diet supplement or complement in terms of macro or micronutrients. We also speculate that dietary choices likely contain social dimensions that may strengthen group identity.

show abstract

“…These associations are usually driven by human values attributed to primates, which may be positive, negative or a mixture of both. The clear similarities between primates and humans often lead to cultural taboos on killing or eating primates, particularly apes, even if they cause damage [Riley, 2010;Nyanganji et al, 2011]. This perceived kinship and interconnectedness between humans and primates has also led to primates being imbued with various attributes, such as embodying wisdom, representing the spirits of human ancestors, and offering important companionship and entertainment as pets [Lee and Priston, 2005].…”

Section: Imbued Human Values (Primates)mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Cheetahs to Chimpanzees: A Comparative Review of the Drivers of Human-Carnivore Conflict and Human-Primate Conflict

Dickman

2013

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-wildlife conflict is a growing conservation threat, and is increasingly of importance to primate conservationists. Despite this, relatively little work has been done to date on the drivers of human-primate conflict, especially compared to other conflict-causing taxa such as large carnivores. However, the drivers of conflict are often very similar across species, so conflict researchers can learn important lessons from work conducted on other taxa. This paper discusses 8 key factors which are likely to affect how hostile people are towards wildlife and any damage they cause – 6 of these are common to both carnivores and primates, while one is much more applicable to carnivores and the other is specific to primates. These conflict drivers involve numerous social and cultural factors, and highlight the importance of truly understanding the local drivers of conflict in order to develop effective mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Monkeys and Apes as Animals and Humans: Ethno-Primatology in Nigeria’s Taraba Region

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Human – monkey interaction on a University campus in Nigeria: An avenue for zoonotic disease transmission at the human wildlife interface?

Human – monkey interaction on a University campus in Nigeria: An avenue for zoonotic disease transmission at the human wildlife interface?

Sustained myrmecophagy in Nigerian chimpanzees: Preferred or fallback food?

From Cheetahs to Chimpanzees: A Comparative Review of the Drivers of Human-Carnivore Conflict and Human-Primate Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About