Orangutan diet, range, and activity at Tanjung Puting, Central Borneo

Galdikas, Biruté M. F.

doi:10.1007/bf02740195

Cited by 233 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 also depicts the five largest nonhuman species in our sample, plotted according to their actual combinations of M BD and number of brain neurons (1)(2)(3)(4). Remarkably, these data points fall within the viability curves that match reported daily feeding times for these species: 5.5 h for the baboon (31), 6.8 h for the chimpanzee (32-34), and 7.2 h for the orangutan (35,36). This match suggests that the actual combinations of M BD and number of brain neurons in large nonhuman primates indeed impose a certain number of daily feeding hours.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…For each of 11 nonhuman primate species varying by a factor of 335 in M BD , from Callithrix jacchus to Gorilla gorilla, we calculated the average E IN per hour spent feeding by dividing the average daily caloric need per species [estimated from the law of Kleiber (21,22) using body masses previously published (25) and not excluding M BR , given that it is relatively very small, of the order of 2% of M BD ] by the average number of hours per day spent feeding (24,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40) (Table S1). We find that the average E IN per hour increases together with M BD such that E IN /h is equal to 25.352 × M BD 0.526 (P < 0.0001 for both constant and exponent; 95% CI for the exponent, 0.392-0.660) and varies from 8.9 kCal/h in the owl monkey and 10.3 kCal/h in the marmoset to 334.7 kCal/h in the gorilla (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of daily hours devoted by each primate to feeding were obtained from previous publications (25,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40). These data sources were selected because they clearly provide numbers of feeding hours per day, and not just percentages of the day, daylight time, or active time that might complicate a direct correspondence across species and studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Fonseca-Azevedo

Herculano‐Houzel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

161

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a general trend for larger mammals to have larger brains, humans are the primates with the largest brain and number of neurons, but not the largest body mass. Why are great apes, the largest primates, not also those endowed with the largest brains? Recently, we showed that the energetic cost of the brain is a linear function of its numbers of neurons. Here we show that metabolic limitations that result from the number of hours available for feeding and the low caloric yield of raw foods impose a tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons, which explains the small brain size of great apes compared with their large body size. This limitation was probably overcome in Homo erectus with the shift to a cooked diet. Absent the requirement to spend most available hours of the day feeding, the combination of newly freed time and a large number of brain neurons affordable on a cooked diet may thus have been a major positive driving force to the rapid increased in brain size in human evolution.encephalization | expensive tissue hypothesis | brain metabolism T he human brain is a linearly scaled-up primate brain in its relationship between brain size and number of neurons (1), having evolved while being subjected to the same cellular scaling rules that apply to primates as a whole (2, 3), including great apes (4). With the largest brain among primates, humans thus have the largest number of neurons among these and possibly all mammals (5), a number that we estimate to be close to three times larger than in gorillas and orangutans, owners of the next largest brains among extant primates (4). We are not outstanding primates, on the contrary, in body size: gorillas can grow to be three times larger than humans. This discrepancy between body and brain size led to the predominant view that encephalization (that is, a larger brain size than expected for body size) is the main characteristic that sets humans apart from other primates and mammals as a whole (6). Although a relatively large brain compared with body size is expected to bring cognitive advantages (6), and despite the well-documented evidence for an increase in brain size during human evolution (7), there is still no consensus on what mechanisms or reasons led to brain enlargement in the Homo lineage.Why are the largest primates not those endowed with the largest brains as well? Rather than evidence that humans are an exception among primates, we consider this disparity to be a clue that, in primate evolution, developing a very large body and a very large brain have been mutually excluding strategies, probably because of metabolic reasons (4, 8). The brain is the third most energy-expensive organ in the human body, ranking in total organ metabolic cost below only skeletal muscle and liver (9). Accordingly, several studies have suggested that the main constraints to increasing primate brain size in evolution are metabolic in nature (10-18). The human brain, in particular, has come to cost ∼20% of the total body resting metabolic rate, even though it ...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Fonseca-Azevedo

Herculano‐Houzel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

161

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When fruit is abundant, they may consume it exclusively but settle for other items in the trees when it is not (Galdikas, 1988;Knott, 1998Knott, , 2005. Consequently, males remain in the canopy most of the time to feed and travel between trees to new food patches.…”

Section: Divergent Anatomies and Evolutionary Historiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Anatomy and Adaptation of Male Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) With Comparison to Male Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)

Zihlman

McFarland

Underwood

2011

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Great apes diversified during the Miocene in Old World forests. Two lineages, gorillas in Africa and orangutans in Asia, have sexual dimorphisms of super-sized males, though they presumably diverged from a smaller common ancestor. We test the hypothesis that they increased in body mass independently and convergently, and that their many postcranial differences reflect locomotor differences. Whole body dissections of five adult male gorillas and four adult male orangutans allowed quantification of body mass distribution to limb segments, of body composition (muscle, bone, skin, and fat relative to total body mass), and of muscle distribution and proportions. Results demonstrate that gorilla forelimb anatomy accommodates shoulder joint mobility for vertical climbing and reaching while maintaining joint stability during quadrupedal locomotion. The heavily muscled hind limbs are equipped for propulsion and weight-bearing over relatively stable substrates on the forest floor. In contrast, orangutan forelimb length, muscle mass, and joint construction are modified for strength and mobility in climbing, bridging, and traveling over flexible supports through the forest canopy. Muscles of hip, knee, and ankle joints provide rotational and prehensile strength essential for moving on unstable and discontinuous branches. We conclude that anatomical similarities are due to common ancestry and that differences in postcranial anatomy reflect powerful selection for divergent locomotor adaptations. These data further support the evolutionary conclusion that gorillas fall with chimpanzees and humans as part of the African hominoid radiation; orangutans are a specialized outlier. Anat Rec, 294:1842Rec, 294: -1855Rec, 294: , 2011. V V C 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…In the Sumatran species, ranges of physically similar females overlap, suggesting that these females are related, and form distinct social clusters in which philopatric tendencies are likely (Singleton and van Schaik 2002). In contrast, males have much larger ranges than females do, and behavioral observations suggest that they are more nomadic and disperse away from their natal range (Galdikas 1988;Rijksen 1978;van Schaik 1996). However, on a practical level, it is much more difficult to determine male dispersal patterns directly (Singleton and van Schaik 2001), as they have much larger ranges and also undergo major morphological changes between adolescence and adulthood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersal Patterns of Orang-utans (Pongo spp.) in a Bornean Peat-swamp Forest

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge regarding dispersal patterns in great apes may help in understanding the evolution of dispersal patterns and social grouping in early hominoids, as well as in our own species. However, the social structure and dispersal system of orang-utans (Pongo spp.) remains little understood despite past research. We addressed this question by conducting genetic analyses on a wild orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) population from the Sabangau peat-swamp in Borneo. We estimated pairwise relatedness among 16 adult individuals using 19 polymorphic microsatellite markers. Mean relatedness among females was significantly higher than in males, irrespective of the relatedness estimator used, following the pattern predicted for male dispersal. Our results support field observations that average dispersal distance for females is less than for males, suggesting that female orangutans are philopatric, whereas males disperse. This contrasts with previous findings from other sites where anthropogenic influences were present. Based on qualitative mitochondrial DNA analyses, it appears that unflanged adult males show some degree of site fidelity compared to flanged males. Thus, male orang-utans may disperse permanently from their natal range once they are fully flanged. Male-biased dispersal and female philopatry in orang-utans differ from those of extant African apes and are more similar to many Old World monkey species. Hence we hypothesize that this system may represent the ancestral state of early hominoids.

show abstract

Orangutan diet, range, and activity at Tanjung Puting, Central Borneo

Cited by 233 publications

References 7 publications

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution

Functional Anatomy and Adaptation of Male Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) With Comparison to Male Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)

Dispersal Patterns of Orang-utans (Pongo spp.) in a Bornean Peat-swamp Forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About