Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 13, pp 4197–4210 | Cite as

Estimating Minimum Area of Suitable Habitat and Viable Population Size for the Northern Muriqui (Brachyteles hypoxanthus)

  • Daniel Brito
  • Carlos Eduardo V. Grelle


A population viability analysis (PVA) using the computer package VORTEX was conducted to assess the minimum viable population (MVP) of the Atlantic Forest endemic primate Brachyteles hypoxanthus. The objectives were: (1) to estimate demographic and genetic MVPs that could be used as quasi-extinction thresholds for future modeling, and (2) to estimate the minimum area of suitable habitat (MASH). The model predicted that populations of 40 and 700 individuals were necessary to achieve demographic and genetic stability, respectively. The model was more sensitive to changes in inbreeding depression, sex ratio and reproduction (percentage of breeding females). MASH estimated to contain genetically viable populations reached 11,570 ha. Muriquis have managed to persist despite severe habitat disturbance, but the results suggest that although most of the extant populations are not threatened by extinction, they are too small to be genetically viable in the long-run, and will loose most of their heterozygosity.

Key words

Atlantic Forest Brachyteles Extinction Minimum area of suitable habitat (MASH) Minimum viable population (MVP) Population viability analysis (PVA) Quasi-extinction VORTEX 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguirre A.C. (1971). O Mono Brachyteles arachnoides (E. Geoffroy). Academia Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen C.R., Pearlstine L.G. and Kitchens W.M. (2001). Modeling viable mammal populations in gap analysis. Biol. Conserv. 99: 135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armbruster P., Fernando P. and Lande R. (1999). Time frames for population viability analysis of species with long generations: an example with Asian elephants. Anim. Conserv. 2: 69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballou J.D. 1992. Small population overview. In: Lacy R.C. and Kreeger T. (eds.), VORTEX: A Stochastic Simulation of the Extinction Process. Version 5 User’s Manual Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG-SSC/IUCN) Apple Valley, pp. 40–49.Google Scholar
  5. Belovsky G.E. (1987). Extinction models and mammalian persistence. In: Soulé, M.E. (eds) Viable Populations for Conservation, pp 35–57. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijlsma R., Bundgaard J. and Putten W.F. (1999). J. Evol. Biol. 12: 1125–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bijlsma R., Bundgaard J. and Boerema A.C. (2000). J. Evol. Biol. 13: 502–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brito D. (2004). Lack of adequate taxonomic knowledge may hinder endemic mammal conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 13: 2135–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brito D. and Grelle C.E.V. (2004). Effectiveness of a reserve network for the conservation of the endemic marsupial Micoureus travassosi in Atlantic Forest remnants in southeastern Brazil. Biodivers. Conserv. 13: 2519–2536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brito D. and da Fonseca G.A.B. in press. Evaluation of minimum viable population size and conservation status of the long-furred woolly mouse opossum Micoureus paraguayanus: an endemic marsupial of the Atlantic Forest. Biodivers. Conserv.Google Scholar
  11. Byers D.L. and Waller D.M. (1999). Do plant populations purge their genetic load? Effects of population size and mating history on inbreeding depression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 30: 479–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caughley G. and Gunn A. (1996). Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiarello A.G. (2000). Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1649–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coimbra-Filho A.F., Pissinatti A. and Rylands A.B. (1993). Breeding muriquis Brachyteles arachnoides in captivity: the experience of the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (CPRJ-FEEMA). Dodo J. Wildlife Preserv. Trusts 29: 66–77Google Scholar
  15. Dean W. (1996). A Ferro e Fogo: A História e a Devastação da Mata Atlântica Brasileira. Companhia das Letras, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  16. Dib L.R.T., Oliva A.S. and Strier K.B. (1997). Terrestrial travel in muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides) across a forest clearing at the Estação Biológica de CaratingaMinas Gerais, Brazil. Neotrop. Primates 5: 8–9Google Scholar
  17. Emmons L.H. and Feer F. (1997). Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Fonseca G.A.B. (1985). The vanishing Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 34: 17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fonseca G.A.B. (1986). Observações sobre a ecologia do mono-carvoeiro ou muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides) e sugestões para a sua conservação. A Primatologia no Brasil 2: 177–183Google Scholar
  20. Foose T.J. (1993). Riders of the last ark: the role of captive breeding in conservation strategies. In: Kaufman, L. and Mallory, K. (eds) The Last Extinction, pp 149–178. MIT Press and New England Aquarium, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Foose T.J., Lande R., Flesness N.R., Rabb G. and Read B. (1986). Propagation plans. Zoo Biol. 5: 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franklin I.R. (1980). Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soulé, M.E. and Wilcox, B.A. (eds) Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, pp 135–150. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Gabriel W., Burger R. and Lynch M. (1991). Population extinction by mutational load and demographic stochasticity. In: Seitz, A. and Loeschke, V. (eds) Species Conservation: A Population-Biological Approach, pp 49–59. Birkhauser Verlage, BaselGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilligan D.M., Woodworth L.M., Montgomery M.E., Briscoe D.A. and Frankham R. (1997). Is mutation accumulation a threat to the survival of endangered populations?. Conserv. Biol. 11: 1235–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilton-Taylor C. (Compiler). 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland.Google Scholar
  26. Hirsch A., Dias L.G., Martins W.P. and Porfirio S. (2002). Rediscovery of Brachyteles arachnoides hypoxanthus at the Fazenda Córrego de Areia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neotrop. Primates 10: 119–122Google Scholar
  27. Hedrick P.W. and Kalinowski S.T. (2000). Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 31: 139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Konstant W.R., Mittermeier R.A., Rylands A.B., Butynski T.M., Eudey A.A., Ganzhorn J. and Kormos R. (2002). The world's top 25 most endangered primates. Neotrop. Primates 10: 128–131Google Scholar
  29. Lacy R.C. (1993). VORTEX: a computer simulation model for population viability analysis. Wildlife Res. 20: 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lacy R.C. (2000). Structure of the VORTEX simulation model for population viability analysis. Ecol. Bull. 48: 191–203Google Scholar
  31. Lande R. (1995). Mutation and conservation. Conserv. Biol. 9: 782–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lande R and Barrowclough G.R. (1987). Effective population sizegenetic variation and their use in population management. In: Soulé, M.E. (eds) Viable Populations for Conservation, pp 87–123. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawton J.H. and Woodroffe G.L. (1991). Habitat and the distribution of water voles. Why are there gaps in a species’ range?. J. Anim. Ecol. 60: 79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindenmayer D.B., Burgman M.A., Akçakaya H.R., Lacy R.C. and Possingham H.P. (1995). A review of the generic computer programs ALEX, RAMAS/space and VORTEX for modelling the viability of wildlife metapopulations. Ecol. Model. 82: 161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch M. and Lande R. (1998). The critical effective size for a genetically secure population. Anim. Conserv. 1: 70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mace G.M. and Lande R. (1991). Assessing extinction threats: towards a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5: 148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCarthy M.A., Burgman M.A. and Ferson S. (1995). Sensitivity analysis for models of population viability. Biol. Conserv. 73: 93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller P.S. and Lacy R.C. 1999. VORTEX: A Stochastic Simulation of the Extinction Process. Version 8 User’s Manual. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG-SSC/IUCN, Apple Valley.Google Scholar
  39. Mills L.S. and Smouse P.E. (1994). Demographic consequences of inbreeding in remnant populations. Am. Nat. 144: 412–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milton K. (1984). Habitatdietand activity patterns of free-ranging woolly spider monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides E. Geoffroy 1806). Int. J. Primatol. 5: 491–514Google Scholar
  41. Mittermeier R.A., Valle C.M.C., Alves M.C., Santos I.B., Pinto C.A.M., Strier K.B., Veado E.M., Constable I.D. and Paccagnella S.G. (1987). Current distribution of the muriqui in the Atlantic Forest region of eastern Brazil. Primate Conserv. 8: 143–148Google Scholar
  42. Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., Fonseca G.A.B. and Kent J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimm S.L., Jones H.L. and Diamond J. (1988). On the risk of extinction. Am. Nat. 132: 757–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pope T.R. (1998). Genetic variation in remnant populations of the woolly spider monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int. J. Primatol. 19: 95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Possingham H.P. (1996). Risk and uncertainty: mathematical models and decision making in conservation biology. In: Spellerberg, I.F. (eds) Conservation Biology, pp 222–234. Longman, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  46. Printes R.C. and Strier K.B. (1999). Behavioral correlates of dispersal in female muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int. J. Primatol. 20: 941–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ralls K., Ballou J.D. and Templeton A.R. (1988). Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2: 185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reed D.H. and Bryant E.H. (2000). Experimental tests of minimum viable population size. Anim. Conserv. 3: 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rylands A.B., Mittermeier R.A. and Rodríguez-Luna E. (1995). Neotrop. Primates 3(suppl.): 113–160Google Scholar
  50. Rylands A., Strier K., Mittermeier R., Borovansky J. and Seal U.S. (1998). Conserving Brazil's Muriqui: Population and Habitat Viability Assesment Workshop for the Muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides). Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), Apple ValleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Shaffer M.L. (1981). Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31: 131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strier K.B. (1987). Ranging behavior of woolly spider monkeys. Int. J. Primatol. 8: 575–591Google Scholar
  53. Strier K.B. (1990). New World primates, new frontiers: insights from the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides). Int. J. Primatol. 11: 7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strier K.B. (1991a). Diet in one group of woolly spider monkeys, or muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am. J. Primatol. 23: 113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strier K.B. (1991b). Conserv. Biol. 5: 214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strier K.B. (1993/1994). Viability analyses of an isolated population of muriqui monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides): implications for primate conservation and demography. Primate Conserv. 14–15: 3–52Google Scholar
  57. Strier K.B. (1997). Behavioral ecology and conservation biology of primates and other animals. Adv. Stud. Behav. 26: 101–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strier K.B. (2000). Population viabilities and conservation implications for muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides) in Brazil's Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 32: 903–913Google Scholar
  59. Strier K.B. and Fonseca G.A.B. (1996/1997). The endangered muriqui in Brazil's Atlantic Forest. Primate Conserv. 17: 131–137Google Scholar
  60. Strier K.B. and Ziegler T.E. (2000). Lack of pubertal influences on female dispersal in muriqui monkeys (Brachyteles arachnoides). Anim. Behav. 59: 849–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strier K.B., Boubli J.P., Guimarães V.O. and Mendes S.L. (2002). The muriqui population of the Estação Biológica de CaratingaMinas Gerais, Brazil: updates. Neotrop. Primates 10: 115–119Google Scholar
  62. Voss R.S. and Jansa S.A. (2003). Phylogenetic studies on Didelphid marsupials II. Nonmolecular data and new IRBP sequences: separate and combined analyses of Didelphine relationships with denser taxon sampling. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 276: 1–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wedekind C. (2002). Manipulating sex ratios for conservation: short-term risks and long-term benefits. Anim. Conserv. 5: 13–20Google Scholar
  64. Zar J.H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Conservação e Manejo de Vida Selvagem (ECMVS), Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrasil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Vertebrados, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de BiologiaCCS, Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrasil
  3. 3.Rua Andrade Neves 93/802Rio de JaneiroBrasil

Personalised recommendations