The home range and multi-scale habitat selection of the threatened maned three-toed sloth (Bradypus torquatus)

On the move: sloths and their epibionts as model mobile ecosystems

“…Like trees that are colonized by microbes in their phyllosphere (leaves) (Vacher et al, 2016) and by lichens in their dermosphere (bark) (Lambais, Lucheta & Crowley, 2014), slow-moving sloths may be reservoirs of similar types of microbes that colonize substrates with low levels of movement-based disturbance. Moreover, as sloths move from tree to ground and tree to tree in the forest canopy (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1975;Vaughan et al, 2007; see online Supporting Information, Supplementary Videos S1-S4), they may acquire epibionts from interacting with hundreds of species of trees, each of Aiello (1985), Anderson & Handley (2001), Britton (1941), Chiarello (2008), Falconi et al (2015), Feldhamer et al (2015), Goodwin & Ayres (2014), Higginbotham et al (2014), Mendoza et al (2015), Montgomery & Sunquist (1978), Nie et al (2015), Nyakatura (2012), , Pauli et al (2014Pauli et al ( , 2016, , Ramirez et al (2011), Sunquist & Montgomery (1973, Taube et al (2001), Urbani & Bosque (2007), Vaughan et al (2007), andWetzel (1985). It should be noted that Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus variegatus home range sizes were based largely on observations in mixed-cacao plantation agroecosystems and thus may not truly represent native home ranges for these species (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1978;Vaughan et al, 2007;Ramirez et al, 2011).…”

Multi‐scale effects of habitat structure and landscape context on a vertebrate with limited dispersal ability (the brown‐throated sloth, Bradypus variegatus)

“…The significant association of sloth occurrence and PC2 ( i.e ., tree density) found in this study is consistent with previous research on the habitat selection of three‐toed sloths (Falconi et al . ). Sites with low tree density may signify open areas or areas with a few, old growth trees, neither of which is preferred sloth habitat, whereas sites with greater tree density might reflect high rates of secondary growth and increased connectivity, thereby promoting sloth occurrence.…”

“…Positive correlations between canopy cover and three‐toed sloth presence have been similarly documented (Falconi et al . ), although associations with low canopy cover have been observed during the dry season in Colombia (Castro‐Vásquez et al . , Acevedo‐Quintero et al .…”

“…The daily movement and dispersal of sloths require vertical and horizontal travel to evade predators and prevent injuries, and uninterrupted connectivity of the canopy allows for enhanced access to scattered food resources (Cassano et al 2011). Positive correlations between canopy cover and three-toed sloth presence have been similarly documented (Falconi et al 2015), although associations with low canopy cover have been observed during the dry season in Colombia (Castro-V asquez et al 2010, Acevedo-Quintero et al 2011. This discrepancy could be due to seasonal variation in leaf phenology or differences in methodology for quantifying canopy cover.…”

Field studies need to report essential information on social organisation – independent of the study focus

“…Twelve publications provided information on social organisation for 15 populations of nine of the 30 Xenarthran species. From these nine species, the following seven species were reported to be exclusively solitary: southern naked-tailed armadillo, Cabassous unicinctus (Desbiez et al, 2018), giant armadillo, Priodontes maximus (Desbiez et al, 2019), nine-banded armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus, (McDonough, 2000), maned three-toed sloth, Bradypus torquatus (Falconi et al, 2015), Hoffmann's two-toed sloth, Choloepus hoffmanni (Vaughan et al, 2007), southern tamandua, Tamandua tetradactyla (Rodrigues et al, 2001) and giant anteater, Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Di Blanco et al, 2017;Medri & Mourão, 2005;Shaw et al, 1987). Two Pilosa species showed intra-specific variation in social organisation.…”