Test of the Optimal Body Size Model for Strepsirhines

Lehman, Shawn M.; Nargolwalla, Mariam C.; Faulkner, Andrea; Taylor, Nicole; Lundy, Rochelle

doi:10.1007/s10764-006-9113-5

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study conforms with previous analyses (Milton and May 1976;Lehman et al 2007) that home range size generally correlates with body size in primates, however the smaller than expected home range for these sized lemurs appears to be a consequence of several factors including diet switching and habitat quality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Home range size in the blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur flavifrons): A comparison between dry and wet seasons

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWestern Madagascar is subjected to a long, dry winter season which coincides with food scarcity. We investigated the effect of this seasonal variation in food availability on the home ranges of blue-eyed black lemurs (Eulemur flavifrons) in the Sahamalaza-Iles Radama National Park, north-western Madagascar. It was expected that home range would increase and overlap more in the dry season. The study was conducted in an area of dry rainforest from September 2006 to March 2008 with five lemur groups. Animals were located by direct observation and geographical locations recorded to determine the daily path length and the home range sizes of the study groups in the respective seasons. Daily path length and home range size varied significantly between seasons. Daily path length was significantly greater in the dry season (673.4 ± 539.2 m) than in the wet season (423.6 ± 183.2 m). Home ranges overlapped between groups in both seasons, but were significantly larger during the dry season (MCP: 7.5 ± 6.6 ha, 95% Kernel: 8.5 ± 6.6 ha) than in the wet season (MCP: 3.0 ± 1.6 ha, 95% Kernel: 4.1 ± 1.6 ha). There was no clear relationship between home range size and group size in either the dry or the wet season. Seasonal changes in home range area are likely to be a consequence of reduced food availability in the dry season. Compared to other primates, including some lemur species, the home range size of the blue-eyed black lemur is relatively small.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…According to Milton and May (1976) and Lehman et al (2007) home range size is correlated with body size in primate species. Because of increased energetic requirements, large animals occupy large home range areas with high productivity to meet their metabolic demands (Swihart et al 1988;Fernandez and Vrba 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home range size in the blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur flavifrons): A comparison between dry and wet seasons

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different factors influence space use among primates. Ranging is, for 49 instance, directly linked to metabolic expenditure and body size (Clutton-Brock and Harvey 1981; 50 Dobson et al 2010; Lehman et al 2007;Milton and May 1976). Additionally, the availability of 51 different resources has also been shown to influence individual spatial behavior.…”

Section: Introduction 44mentioning

confidence: 99%

Size, Site Fidelity, and Overlap of Home Ranges and Core Areas in the Socially Monogamous Owl Monkey (Aotus azarae) of Northern Argentina

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…Empirically, the OST failed to predict the allometric scaling of life‐history traits in bats (Jones & Purvis, 1997; Purvis, 2006) and insectivores (Symonds, 1999), the mass distributions of Australian marsupials (Chown & Gaston, 1997), and the relationships between body size and home range in strepsirhine monkeys (Lehman et al. , 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirically, the OST failed to predict the allometric scaling of life-history traits in bats (Jones & Purvis, 1997;Purvis, 2006) and insectivores (Symonds, 1999), the mass distributions of Australian marsupials (Chown & Gaston, 1997), and the relationships between body size and home range in strepsirhine monkeys (Lehman et al, 2007). On conceptual grounds, the existence of a single optimal size at 100 g implies that all members of successful mammalian clades such as artiodactyls and carnivores are suboptimally sized, which is a contentious assertion (Blackburn & Gaston, 1996;Meiri et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One size does not fit all: no evidence for an optimal body size on islands

Raia

Carotenuto

Meiri

2010

Global Ecology and Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Optimal body size theories predict that large clades have a single, optimal, body size that serves as an evolutionary attractor, with the full body size spectrum of a clade resulting from interspecific competition. Because interspecific competition is believed to be reduced on islands, such theories predict that insular animals should be closer to the optimal size than mainland animals. We test the resulting prediction that insular clade members should therefore have narrower body size ranges than their mainland relatives.Location World-wide. MethodsWe used body sizes and a phylogenetic tree of 4004 mammal species, including more than 200 species that went extinct since the last ice age. We tested, in a phylogenetically explicit framework, whether insular taxa converge on an optimal size and whether insular clades have narrow size ranges. ResultsWe found no support for any of the predictions of the optimal size theory. No specific size serves as an evolutionary attractor. We did find consistent evidence that large (> 10 kg) mammals grow smaller on islands. Smaller species, however, show no consistent tendency to either dwarf or grow larger on islands. Size ranges of insular taxa are not narrower than expected by chance given the number of species in their clades, nor are they narrower than the size ranges of their mainland sister clades -despite insular clade members showing strong phylogenetic clustering. Main conclusionsThe concept of a single optimal body size is not supported by the data that were thought most likely to show it. We reject the notion that inclusive clades evolve towards a body-plan-specific optimum. KeywordsBody size evolution, Brownian motion model, island rule, mammalian phylogenetic tree, optimal body size theory, phylogenetic dispersion.

show abstract

Test of the Optimal Body Size Model for Strepsirhines

Abstract: We determined if data on strepsirhine body and home range sizes support an optimal body size (OBS) model of 100 g, as predicted from studies of ener

Cited by 5 publications

References 78 publications

Home range size in the blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur flavifrons): A comparison between dry and wet seasons

Home range size in the blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur flavifrons): A comparison between dry and wet seasons

Size, Site Fidelity, and Overlap of Home Ranges and Core Areas in the Socially Monogamous Owl Monkey (Aotus azarae) of Northern Argentina

One size does not fit all: no evidence for an optimal body size on islands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About