共查询到2条相似文献，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Extractive foraging (EF) involves the exploitation of hidden or embedded foods, generally any food that is not visible to the naked eye. Therefore, EF is particularly important for survival in marginal habitats as it provides seasonal fallback foods in low food availability seasons. Although many studies consider primates’ EF behavior and category, colobine species are usually categorized as non‐extractive foragers and few studies quantitatively examine their EF behavior. In this study, we examined the EF behavior of one colobine species, the gray snub‐nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus brelichi), at Yangaoping in Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve, Guizhou. We recorded 6 categories of EF behaviors. The most frequently sought‐out foods were seeds, young bamboo and invertebrates. Extracted foods accounted for an average of 26.02% of feeding records. As the monkey engages in little EF behavior in the winter when the food availability is low, these results seem to do not support the hypothesis that EF serves to secure additional resources during lean times in marginal or seasonal habitats. According to these findings, we suggest R. brelich should be considered as an extractive forager. Our study also highlights the need for increased representation of colobines in the EF literature to better inform the discussion concerning its link to primate brain evolution. 相似文献
2.
Dayong LI Cyril C. GRUETER Baoping REN Qihai ZHOU Ming LI Zhengsong PENG Fuwen WEI 《Integrative zoology》2006,1(4):141-152
We examined the criteria for sleeping place selection in a social band of Rhinopithecus bieti (black‐and‐white snub‐nosed or golden monkeys) living in the mountainous Samage Forest, Baima Snow Mountain Nature Reserve, Yunnan, China. We performed principal component analysis and found that slope aspect, tree height and trunk diameter were likely key variables influencing selection of sleeping places. Sleeping sites were preferentially located in mixed deciduous/conifer forest. The monkeys slept exclusively in evergreen trees, of which 82% were conifers (mostly Picea likiangensis and Tsuga dumosa) and 18% evergreen oaks (Cyclobalanopsis oxyodon and Quercus spp.). Sleeping trees were tall (mean 30.5 m), had high boles (mean 18.4 m), large diameters (mean 62.6 cm) and large crown areas (mean 57.9 m2). A comparative analysis of phytological and architectural features between trees in “sleeping site plots” (n= 18) and trees in “non‐sleeping‐site plots” (n= 66) revealed that diameter, crown surface area and tree height were significantly (P < 0.01) larger in the former compared with the latter. All investigated roosting sites were situated on steep mountain slopes. Valleys and mountain ridges were avoided. We also detected re‐use of roosting sites on several occasions, but not on consecutive nights. It is most likely that a mix of factors (stability of trees, access to food, unit cohesion, monitoring potential) explains the pattern of sleeping site preference, but predation at night seems to be only slightly important. Climate appears to have a profound influence on patterns of sleeping site selection in the monkeys' harsh temperate habitat. This is demonstrated by the monkeys' preference for mixed forest at medium elevations over montane fir forest at high elevations and slopes instead of ridges, with reduced exposure to wind and precipitation inherent in the former. We also emphasize the possibly substantial role that non‐environmental factors (the nature of social organization and socio‐behavioral strategies) play in determining sleeping site use in R. bieti and other primates. 相似文献