The role of anthropic, ecological, and social factors in sleeping site choice by long‐tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)

Abstract

When choosing their sleeping sites, primates make adaptive trade-offs between various biotic and abiotic constraints. In human-modified environments, anthropic factors may play a role. We assessed the influence of ecological (predation), social (intergroup competition), and anthropic (proximity to human settlements) factors in sleeping site choice by long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) occupying a habitat at the interface of natural forests and human-modified zones in Bali Barat National Park, Indonesia. Over the course of 56 nights, we collected data relating to physical features of sleeping trees, patterns of the use of sleeping sites within the home range, pre-sleep behavior, diurnal ranging patterns and availability of natural and human food. Overall, the macaques used 17 sleeping sites with 37 sleeping trees. When the monkeys slept in forest zones, they selected sleeping trees that had larger trunks but were not significantly taller than surrounding trees. Though the macaques rarely re-used sleeping sites on consecutive nights, they frequently re-used four sites over the study period. The group favored sleeping within the core area of its home range, despite the occurrence of frequent agonistic intergroup encounters there. Macaques preferentially selected sleeping trees located within or near human-modified zones, especially when human food was abundant and natural food was scarce. These results partially support the hypothesis that long-tailed macaques choose their sleeping sites to avoid predation; proximity to human settlements appears to be the primary factor influencing sleeping site choice in this primate species. Our results reflect the strong influence that anthropic factors have on primates, which subsist in increasingly human-dominated landscapes. Am. J. Primatol.

Characterization of the Tree Holes Used by Lepilemur ruficaudatus in the Dry, Deciduous Forest of Kirindy Mitea National Park

“…For example, they use sleeping trees that are less accessible to predators or that provide vantage points for detecting carnivores and raptors [Wahungu, 2001;Day and Elwood, 2003;Goodman, 2003;Hankerson et al, 2007;Génin, 2010;Holmes et al, 2011;Brotcorne et al, 2014;Markham et al, 2016]. Indeed, sufficient protection against predators was probably offered by most of the tree holes used by L. ruficaudatus because they tended to be in intact hard trunks and covered by branches.…”

“…Preference for particular tree species as sleeping sites is common in primates (e.g., Papio cynocephalus [Hamilton, 1982;Markham et al, 2016]; Sapajus apella [Zhang, 1995]; Tarsier spectrum [Gursky, 1998]; Microcebus griseorufus [Génin, 2010]; Callicebus coimbrai [Souza-Alves et al, 2011]; L. sahamalazensis [Seiler et al, 2013a]; Macaca fascicularis [Brotcorne et al, 2014]). Because the likelihood to produce suitable sleeping tree holes varies by tree species, nocturnal lemur species distribution and abundance may be associated with tree hole availability [Ganzhorn and Schmid, 1998;Radespiel et al, 1998;Rasoloharijaona et al, 2003;Seiler et al, 2014].…”

“…For example, greater protection from mosquitos and predation is offered by intact sleeping trees [Anderson, 1998;Day and Elwood, 1999;Di Bitetti et al, 2000;Nunn and Heymann, 2005]. Additional factors that influence primate choice of sleeping trees include food accessibility [Hamilton, 1982;Chapman, 1989;Heymann, 1995;von Hippel, 1998;Wahungu, 2001;Teichroeb et al, 2012;Markham et al, 2016], tree girth [Gursky, 1998;Aguirre et al, 2003;Hankerson et al, 2007;Holmes et al, 2011], percentage of canopy cover [Garcia and Braza, 1993;Bernard et al, 2011;Souza-Alves et al, 2011;Cheyne et al, 2012], tree height [Gursky, 1998;Zhang, 1995;Day and Elwood, 1999;Wahungu, 2001;Peh and Sodhi, 2002;Brotcorne et al, 2014], height of the first branch [Day and Elwood, 1999], status of the tree as alive or dead [Schmid, 1998;Hankerson et al, 2007;Seiler et al, 2013a], and tree species [SouzaAlves et al, 2011;Markham et al, 2016;Salmona et al, 2015].…”

Anthropogenic Landscapes, Human Action and the Process of Co-Construction with other Species: Making Anthromes in the Anthropocene

“…Surveys and focal data collection projects reveal that that a large percentage of the macaque groups on Bali receive some substantial or integral component of their nutritional requirements from humans or human activity [34,47,48]. In fact, even those macaques who live in the large national park forests preferentially spend their time near the forest edges, where there are human villages and temples [49]. Many macaque groups living in and around temples are also directly provisioned beyond the consumption of temple offerings.…”

“…The economic benefits include temple site entrance fees from tourists who come to see and interact with the monkeys and the additional funds that they spend in the local area on food, lodging and the purchasing of goods. The cultural benefits may include a sense of "merit" or a sense of connectivity with specific Hindu socio-religious narratives elicited via the daily interactions and/or provisioning of the macaques [32,34,49]. The Bali anthrome mosaic, like that produced by the interactions of khat, hyena and humans, reflects intertwined webs of co-construction revealing the interconnectedness of anthromes.…”