Food patch structure and plant resource partitioning in interspecific associations of amazonian tamarins

  • Carlos A. Peres


Ávila-Pires’ saddle-back tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis avilapiresi) and red-cap moustached tamarins (S. mystax pileatus), coexisting in highly stable mixed-species groups, overlapped considerably in their use of plant food resources at an Amazonian terra firme forest site. Overlap between food types consumed by the two species was particularly high during periods of lowest fruit availability, when they resorted to a common food supply, primarily the pod exudates of two emergent species of legume trees (Parkia nitida andParkia pendula) and nectar ofSymphonia globulifera. Within-group interspecific competition did not covary with independent measures of resource availability, contrary to predictions based on resource partitioning models. A greater number of both saddle-back and moustached tamarins were able to feed for longer patch residence periods within larger and more productive food patches, whereas small and clumped patches could be monopolized by the socially and numerically dominant moustached tamarins to the physical exclusion of the smaller-bodied saddle-back tamarins. Overall rates of interspecific aggression were extremely low, however, partly because patches that could be monopolized contributed with a minor proportion of either species’ diet. Saddle-backs foraged at lower levels in the understory and encountered smaller food patches more often, whereas moustached tamarins foraged higher and encountered more larger patches in the middle canopy. Although the two species led one another to differently-sized patches, moustached tamarins initiated most feeding bouts and encountered significantly larger and more productive patches that tended to accommodate the entire mixed-species group. Disadvantages of exploitative and interference feeding competition over plant resources, and advantages of shared knowledge of food patches, are but one component of the overall cost-benefit relationship of interspecific associations in tamarins.

Key words

Saguinus food patch resource partitioning mixed-species groups Amazonia 


  1. Bradbury, J. W., and Vehrencamp, S. L. (1977). Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats. I. Field studies.Behav. Ecol Sociobiol. 1: 337–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castro, N. R. (1991).Behavioral Ecology of Two Coexisting Tamarin Species (Saguinus fuscicollis nigrifronsand Saguinus mystax mystax,Callitrichidae, Primates) in Amazonian Peru, Unpublished. Ph.D. thesis, Washington University, Saint Louis.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, C. (1988). Patch use and patch depletion by the spider and howling monkeys of Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica.Behaviour 105: 97–116.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R. W., and Chapman, L. J. (1995). Ecological constraint on group size: An analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Harvey, P. H. (1977). Primate ecology and social organization.J. Zool. Lond.: 183: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho, A. M., Coelho, L. S., Bramblett, C. A., Bramblett, S. S., and Quick L. B. (1976). Ecology, population characteristics, and sympatric association in primates: A sociobioenergetic analysis of howler and spider monkeys at Tikal, Guatemala.Yb. Phys. Anthropol. 20: 95–135.Google Scholar
  7. Cords, M. (1987) Mixed-species association ofCercopithecus monkeys in the Kakamega Forest, Kenya.Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 117: 1–109.Google Scholar
  8. Cottam, G., and Curtis, J. T. (1956). The use of distance measurements in phytosociological sampling.Ecology 37: 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, J. F., Muckenhirn, N., and Rudran, R. (1972). The relationship between ecology and social structure in primates.Science 176: 863–874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garber, P. A. (1986). The ecology of seed dispersal in two species of callitrichid primates (Saguinus mystax andSaguinus fuscicollis).Am. J. Primatol. 10: 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garber, P. A. (1988). Diet, foraging patterns, and resource defense in a mixed species troop ofSaguinus mystax andSaguinus fuscicollis in Amazonian Peru.Behaviour 105: 18–34.Google Scholar
  12. Gautier-Hion, A. (1978). Food-niches and coexistence in sympatric primates in Gabon. In Olivers, D. J., and Herbert, J. (eds.),Recent Advances in Primatology, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Gentry, A. H., and Emmons, L. H. (1987). Geographical variation in fertility, phenology, and composition of the understory of Neotropical forests.Biotropica 19: 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heymann, E. W. (1990). Interspecific relations in a mixed-species troop of moustached tamarins,Saguinus mystax, and saddle-back tamarins (Platyrrhini: Callitrichidae), at the Río Blanco, Peruvian Amazonia.Am. J. Primatol. 21: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horn, H. (1968). The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the brewers blackbird (Euphagus cynocephalus).Ecology 49: 682–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubrecht, R. C. (1985). Home-range and use and territorial behavior in the common marmoset,Caltithrix jacchus jacchus, at Tapacura Field Station, Recife, Brazil.Int. J. Primatol 6: 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Izawa, K. (1978). A field study of the ecology and behavior of the black-mantle tamarin (Saguinus nigricollis).Primates 19: 241–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janson, C. H. (1985). Aggressive competition and individual food consumption in the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janson, C. H. (1988). Food competition in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): Quantitative effects of group size and tree productivity.Behaviour 105: 53–76.Google Scholar
  20. Leighton, M., and Leighton, D. R. (1982). The relationship of size of feeding aggregate to size of food patch: Howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) feeding inTrichilia cipo fruit trees on Barro Colorado Island.Biotropica 14: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linton, L. R., Davies, R. W., and Wrona, F. J. (1981). Resource utilization indices: an assessment.J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manly, B. F. J. (1990). On the statistical analysis of niche overlap data.Can. J. Zool. 68: 1420–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menzel, E. W., Jr., and Juno, C. (1985). Social foraging in marmoset monkeys and the question of intelligence.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 308: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell, C. L., Boinski, S., and Schaik, C. P. (1991). Competitive regimes and female bonding in two species of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedi andS. sciureus).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monge, T. G. F. (1987).Importancia de los Frutos en la Dieta de Saguinus mystax y S. fuscicollis (Primates, Callitrichidae) en el R’o Tahuayo, Loreto—PerÚ, M.Sc. thesis, Universidad Nacional de la Amazon’a Peruana, Iquitos.Google Scholar
  26. Natori, M., and Hanihara, T. (1992). Intrageneric variations of the dental measurements in the genusSaguinus and its systematic relationships.Folia Primatol. 58: 84–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norconk, M. A. (1990). Mechanisms promoting stability in mixedSaguinus mystax and 5.fuscicollis troops.Am. J. Primatol. 21: 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, T. (1954). Experimental studies of interspecific competition in two species ofTribolium.Physiol. Zool. 27: 177–238.Google Scholar
  29. Peres, C. A. (1989). Costs and benefits of territorial defense in golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peres, C. A. (1991).Ecology of Mixed-Species Groups of Tamarins in Amazonian Terra Firme Forests, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Peres, C. A. (1992a). Prey-capture benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins,Saguinus fuscicollis and 5.mystax.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31: 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peres, C. A. (1992b). Consequences of joint-territoriality in a mixed-species group of tamarin monkeys.Behaviour 123: 220–246.Google Scholar
  33. Peres, C. A. (1993a). Structure and spatial organization of an Amazonian terra firme forest primate community.J. Trop. Ecol. 9: 259–276.Google Scholar
  34. Peres, C. A. (1993b). Diet and feeding ecology of saddle-back (Saguinus fuscicollis) and moustached (S. mystax) tamarins in an Amazonian terra firme forest.J. Zool. Lond. 230: 567–592.Google Scholar
  35. Peres, C. A. (1994a). Primate responses to phenological changes in an Amazonian terra firme forest.Biotropica 26(3): 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peres, C. A. (1994b). Antipredation benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins.Folia Primatol. 61: 97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peres, C. A. (1994c). Plant resource use and partitioning in two tamarin species and woolly monkeys in an Amazonian terra firme forest. In Thierry, B., Anderson, J. R., Roeder, J. J., and Herrenschmidt, N. (eds.),Current Primatology, Vol. I: Ecology and Evolution, Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
  38. Peres, C. A. (1996). Use of space, foraging group size, and spatial group structure in gray woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha cana): A review of the Atelinae. In Norconk, M., Rosenberger, A., and Garber, P. (eds.),Adaptive Radiations of Neotropical Primates Plenum, New York (in press).Google Scholar
  39. Petraitis, P. S. (1979). Likelihood measures of niche breadth and overlap.Ecology 60: 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pook, A. G., and Pook, G. (1982). Polyspecific association betweenSaguinus fuscicollis, Saguinus labiatus, Callimico goeldii and other primates in North-Western Bolivia.Folia Primatol. 38: 196–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyke, G. H., Pulliam, H. R., and Charnov, E. L. (1977). Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests.Q. Rev. Biol. 52: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaik, C. P., and Hoff, J. (1983). On the ultimate causes of primate social systems.Behaviour 85: 91–117.Google Scholar
  43. Schaik, C. P., and Noordwijk, M. A. (1988). Scramble and contest in feeding competition among female long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis).Behaviour 105: 77–98.Google Scholar
  44. Schluter, D. (1981). Does the theory of optimal diets apply in complex environments?Am. Nat. 118: 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoener, T. W. (1968). TheAnolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna.Ecobgy 49: 704–726.Google Scholar
  46. Schoener, T. W. (1974). Temporal resource partitioning and the compression hypothesis.Proc. Natl. Acad, Sci. 71: 4169–4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoener, T. W. (1982). The controversy over interspecific competition.Am. Sci. 70: 586–595Google Scholar
  48. Smith, J. N. M., Grant, P. R., Grant, B. R., Abbott, I. J., and Abbott, L. K. (1978). Seasonal variation in feeding habits of Darwin’s ground finches.Ecology 59: 1137–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snowdon, C. T., and Soini, P. (1988). The tamarins, genusSaguinus. In Mittermeier, R. A., Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho, A. B., and Fonseca, G. A. B. (eds.),Ecology and Behavior of Neotropical Primates, Vol. 2, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, pp. 223–298Google Scholar
  50. Soini, P. (1987). Ecology of the saddle-back tamarinsSaguinus fuscicollis illigeri on the Rio Pacaya, northeastern Peru.Folia Primatol. 49: 11–32.Google Scholar
  51. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. (1981).Biometry, 2nd ed., Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  52. Symington, M. M. (1988). Food competition and foraging party size in the black spider monkey (Ateles paniscus chamek).Behaviour 105: 117–134Google Scholar
  53. Terborgh, J. (1983).Five New World Primates: A Study in Comparative Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  54. Terborgh, J. (1990). Mixed-species flocks and polyspecific associations: Costs and benefits of mixed groups to birds and monkeys.Am. J. Primatol. 21: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Terborgh, J., and Janson, C. (1986). The socioecology of primate groups.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17: 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ward, P., and Zahavi, A. (1973). The importance of certain assemblages of birds as “information centers” for food finding. 115: 517–534.Google Scholar
  57. Waser, P. M. (1987). Interactions among primate species. In Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W., and Struhsaker, T. T. (eds.),Primate Societies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 210–226.Google Scholar
  58. White, F. J., and Wrangham, R. W. (1988). Feeding competition and patch size in the chimpanzee speciesPan paniscus andPan troglodytes.Behaviour 105: 148–164.Google Scholar
  59. Willis, E. O. (1966). Competitive exclusion and birds at fruiting trees in western Colombia.Auk 83: 479–480.Google Scholar
  60. Yoneda, M. (1984). Comparative studies on vertical separation, foraging behavior and traveling of saddle-backed tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) and red-chested moustached tamarins (Saguinus labiatus) in northern Bolivia.Primates 25: 414–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos A. Peres
    • 1
  1. 1.CSERGE, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations