Habitat amount hypothesis and passive sampling explain mammal species composition in Amazonian river islands

Nested structures of species assemblages have been frequently associated with patch size and isolation, leading to the conclusion that colonization–extinction dynamics drives nestedness. The ‘passive sampling’ model states that the regional abundance of species randomly determines their occurrence in patches. The ‘habitat amount hypothesis’ also challenges patch size and isolation effects, arguing that they occur because of a ‘sample area effect’. Here, we (a) ask whether the structure of the mammal assemblages of fluvial islands shows a nested pattern, (b) test whether species’ regional abundance predicts species’ occurrence on islands, and (c) ask whether habitat amount in the landscape and matrix resistance to biological flow predict the islands’ species composition. We quantified nestedness and tested its significance using null models. We used a regression model to analyze whether a species’ relative regional abundance predicts its incidence on islands. We accessed islands’ species composition by an NMDS ordination and used multiple regression to evaluate how species composition responds to habitat amount and matrix resistance. The degree of nestedness did not differ from that expected by the passive sampling hypothesis. Likewise, species’ regional abundance predicted its occurrence on islands. Habitat amount successfully predicted the species composition on islands, whereas matrix resistance did not. We suggest the application of habitat amount hypothesis for predicting species composition in other patchy systems. Although the island biogeography perspective has dominated the literature, we suggest that the passive sampling perspective is more appropriate for explaining the assemblages’ structure in this and other non-equilibrium patch systems. Abstract in Portuguese is available with online material. © 2019 The Association for Tropical Biology and Conservatio

Promoting Equitable Research Partnerships in Primatology

Like other sciences, primatology has its roots in colonial endeavors (Harraway, 1989; Hobaiter et al., 2021; Lappan et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2022). In this editorial we briefly review ongoing colonial attitudes in primatology, including exploitative science, white savior ideology, and green violence. Next, we explore how primatologists can collaborate more equitably and examine some of the challenges involved. We then focus on the role of journal editors in promoting equitable research, report on Inclusion and Diversity statements in articles published in the International Journal of Primatology, and end by describing the next steps for the journal

Brown howler monkey: alouatta guariba Humboldt, 1812

Alouatta guariba is endemic to the Atlantic Forest in eastern Brazil and northeast Argentina. In the south, its distribution is limited by the Camaquã river basin (Printes et al. 2001) and to the north by the Paraguaçu river in the state of Bahia (Gregorin 2006; Neves et al. 2018). The western boundary is marked by the limits of the Atlantic Forest. It occurs in the Brazilian states of Bahia, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul (Mendes et al. 2008, Bicca-Marques et al. 2018). In Argentina the species is limited to the province of Misiones (Agostini et al. 2017).Fil: Buss, Gerson. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação dos Primatas; BrasilFil: Oklander, Luciana Inés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Posadas | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Posadas; ArgentinaFil: Bicca Marques, Júlio César. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Parana. Escola de Ciencias Da Vida.; BrasilFil: Hirano, Zelinda B.. Universidade Regional de Blumenau; BrasilFil: Chaves, Oscar M.. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Parana. Escola de Ciencias Da Vida.; BrasilFil: Mendes, Sergio L.. Instituto Nacional da Mata Atlântica; BrasilFil: Neves, Leonardo G.. Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz; BrasilFil: Melo, Fabiano R.. Universidade Federal de Viçosa.; BrasilFil: Rylands, Anthony B.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Jerusalinsky, Leandro. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação dos Primatas Brasileiros; Brasi

News and Perspectives: Words matter in primatology

Postings on social media on Twitter (now X), BioAnthropology News (Facebook), and other venues, as well as recent publications in prominent journals, show that primatologists, ecologists, and other researchers are questioning the terms “Old World” and “New World” due to their colonial implications and history. The terms are offensive if they result in erasing Indigenous voices and history, ignoring the fact that Indigenous peoples were in the Americas long before European colonization. Language use is not without context, but alternative terminology is not always obvious and available. In this perspective, we share opinions expressed by an international group of primatologists who considered questions about the use of these terms, whether primatologists should adjust language use, and how to move forward. The diversity of opinions provides insight into how conventional terms used in primatological research and conservation may impact our effectiveness in these domains

News and Perspectives: Words matter in primatology

Postings on social media on Twitter (now X), BioAnthropology News (Facebook), and other venues, as well as recent publications in prominent journals, show that primatologists, ecologists, and other researchers are questioning the terms “Old World” and “New World” due to their colonial implications and history. The terms are offensive if they result in erasing Indigenous voices and history, ignoring the fact that Indigenous peoples were in the Americas long before European colonization. Language use is not without context, but alternative terminology is not always obvious and available. In this perspective, we share opinions expressed by an international group of primatologists who considered questions about the use of these terms, whether primatologists should adjust language use, and how to move forward. The diversity of opinions provides insight into how conventional terms used in primatological research and conservation may impact our effectiveness in these domains

Tropical field stations yield high conservation return on investment

Conservation funding is currently limited; cost‐effective conservation solutions are essential. We suggest that the thousands of field stations worldwide can play key roles at the frontline of biodiversity conservation and have high intrinsic value. We assessed field stations’ conservation return on investment and explored the impact of COVID‐19. We surveyed leaders of field stations across tropical regions that host primate research; 157 field stations in 56 countries responded. Respondents reported improved habitat quality and reduced hunting rates at over 80% of field stations and lower operational costs per km2 than protected areas, yet half of those surveyed have less funding now than in 2019. Spatial analyses support field station presence as reducing deforestation. These “earth observatories” provide a high return on investment; we advocate for increased support of field station programs and for governments to support their vital conservation efforts by investing accordingly

Factors influencing terrestriality in primates of the Americas and Madagascar

Among mammals, the order Primates is exceptional in having a high taxonomic richness in which the taxa are arboreal, semiterrestrial, or terrestrial. Although habitual terrestriality is pervasive among the apes and African and Asian monkeys (catarrhines), it is largely absent among monkeys of the Americas (platyrrhines), as well as galagos, lemurs, and lorises (strepsirrhines), which are mostly arboreal. Numerous ecological drivers and species-specific factors are suggested to set the conditions for an evolutionary shift from arboreality to terrestriality, and current environmental conditions may provide analogous scenarios to those transitional periods. Therefore, we investigated predominantly arboreal, diurnal primate genera from the Americas and Madagascar that lack fully terrestrial taxa, to determine whether ecological drivers (habitat canopy cover, predation risk, maximum temperature, precipitation, primate species richness, human population density, and distance to roads) or species-specific traits (body mass, group size, and degree of frugivory) associate with increased terrestriality. We collated 150,961 observation hours across 2,227 months from 47 species at 20 sites in Madagascar and 48 sites in the Americas. Multiple factors were associated with ground use in these otherwise arboreal species, including increased temperature, a decrease in canopy cover, a dietary shift away from frugivory, and larger group size. These factors mostly explain intraspecific differences in terrestriality. As humanity modifies habitats and causes climate change, our results suggest that species already inhabiting hot, sparsely canopied sites, and exhibiting more generalized diets, are more likely to shift toward greater ground use.Fil: Eppley, Timothy M.. San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance; Estados Unidos. Portland State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hoeks, Selwyn. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Países BajosFil: Chapman, Colin A.. University of KwaZulu-Natal; Sudáfrica. Wilson Center; Estados Unidos. Northwest University; China. The George Washington University; Estados UnidosFil: Ganzhorn, Jörg U.. Universitat Hamburg; AlemaniaFil: Hall, Katie. Sedgwick County Zoo; Estados UnidosFil: Owen, Megan A.. San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Adams, Dara B.. Humboldt State University; Estados Unidos. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Allgas, Néstor. Asociación Neotropical Primate Conservation Perú; PerúFil: Amato, Katherine R.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Andriamahaihavana, McAntonin. Université D'antananarivo; MadagascarFil: Aristizabal, John F.. Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez; México. Universidad de los Andes; ColombiaFil: Baden, Andrea L.. City University of New York; Estados Unidos. New York Consortium In Evolutionary Primatology; Estados UnidosFil: Balestri, Michela. Oxford Brookes University (oxford Brookes University);Fil: Barnett, Adrian A.. University Of Roehampton; Reino Unido. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Bicca Marques, Júlio César. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Bowler, Mark. University Of Suffolk; Reino Unido. San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Boyle, Sarah A.. Rhodes College; Estados UnidosFil: Brown, Meredith. University of Calgary; CanadáFil: Caillaud, Damien. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Calegaro Marques, Cláudia. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Campbell, Christina J.. California State University Northridge (calif. State Univ. Northridge);Fil: Campera, Marco. Oxford Brookes University (oxford Brookes University);Fil: Campos, Fernando A.. University of Texas at San Antonio; Estados UnidosFil: Cardoso, Tatiane S.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi; BrasilFil: Carretero Pinzón, Xyomara. Proyecto Zocay; ColombiaFil: Champion, Jane. University of Calgary; CanadáFil: Chaves, Óscar M.. Universidad de Costa Rica; Costa RicaFil: Chen Kraus, Chloe. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Colquhoun, Ian C.. Western University; CanadáFil: Dean, Brittany. University of Calgary; CanadáFil: Kowalewski, Miguel Martin. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Centro de Ecología Aplicada del Litoral. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. Centro de Ecología Aplicada del Litoral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia". Estación Biológica de Usos Múltiples (Sede Corrientes); Argentin

ATLANTIC ‐ PRIMATES : a dataset of communities and occurrences of primates in the Atlantic Forests of South America

Primates play an important role in ecosystem functioning and offer critical insights into human evolution, biology, behavior, and emerging infectious diseases. There are 26 primate species in the Atlantic Forests of South America, 19 of them endemic. We compiled a dataset of 5,472 georeferenced locations of 26 native and 1 introduced primate species, as hybrids in the genera Callithrix and Alouatta. The dataset includes 700 primate communities, 8,121 single species occurrences and 714 estimates of primate population sizes, covering most natural forest types of the tropical and subtropical Atlantic Forest of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina and some other biomes. On average, primate communities of the Atlantic Forest harbor 2 ± 1 species (range = 1–6). However, about 40% of primate communities contain only one species. Alouatta guariba (N = 2,188 records) and Sapajus nigritus (N = 1,127) were the species with the most records. Callicebus barbarabrownae (N = 35), Leontopithecus caissara (N = 38), and Sapajus libidinosus (N = 41) were the species with the least records. Recorded primate densities varied from 0.004 individuals/km2 (Alouatta guariba at Fragmento do Bugre, Paraná, Brazil) to 400 individuals/km2 (Alouatta caraya in Santiago, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil). Our dataset reflects disparity between the numerous primate census conducted in the Atlantic Forest, in contrast to the scarcity of estimates of population sizes and densities. With these data, researchers can develop different macroecological and regional level studies, focusing on communities, populations, species co‐occurrence and distribution patterns. Moreover, the data can also be used to assess the consequences of fragmentation, defaunation, and disease outbreaks on different ecological processes, such as trophic cascades, species invasion or extinction, and community dynamics. There are no copyright restrictions. Please cite this Data Paper when the data are used in publications. We also request that researchers and teachers inform us of how they are using the data.Fil: Culot, Laurence. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Pereira, Lucas Augusto. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Agostini, Ilaria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical; Argentina. Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico; ArgentinaFil: de Almeida, Marco Antônio Barreto. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Alves, Rafael Souza Cruz. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Baldovino, María Celia. Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Di Bitetti, Mario Santiago. Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; ArgentinaFil: Oklander, Luciana Inés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; ArgentinaFil: Holzmann, Ingrid. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta. Instituto de Bio y Geociencias del NOA. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales. Museo de Ciencias Naturales. Instituto de Bio y Geociencias del NOA; ArgentinaFil: Dums, Marcos. RUMO S.A. Licenciamento Ambiental; BrasilFil: Lombardi, Pryscilla Moura. RUMO S.A. Licenciamento Ambiental; BrasilFil: Bonikowski, Renata Twardowsky Ramalho. RUMO S.A. Licenciamento Ambiental; BrasilFil: Age, Stéfani Gabrieli. RUMO S.A. Licenciamento Ambiental; BrasilFil: Souza Alves, João Pedro. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Chagas, Renata. Universidade Federal da Paraíba; BrasilFil: da Cunha, Rogério Grassetto Teixeira. Universidade Federal de Alfenas; BrasilFil: Valença Montenegro, Monica Mafra. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaçao de Primates Brasileiros; BrasilFil: Ludwig, Gabriela. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaçao de Primates Brasileiros; BrasilFil: Jerusalinsky, Leandro. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaçao de Primates Brasileiros; BrasilFil: Buss, Gerson. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaçao de Primates Brasileiros; BrasilFil: de Azevedo, Renata Bocorny. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaçao de Primates Brasileiros; BrasilFil: Filho, Roberio Freire. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Bufalo, Felipe. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Milhe, Louis. Université D'Avignon et des Pays du Vaucluse; FranciaFil: Santos, Mayara Mulato dos. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Sepulvida, Raíssa. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Ferraz, Daniel da Silva. Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Faria, Michel Barros. Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Ribeiro, Milton Cezar. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Galetti, Mauro. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; Brasi

Tropical field stations yield high conservation return on investment

Conservation funding is currently limited; cost‐effective conservation solutions are essential. We suggest that the thousands of field stations worldwide can play key roles at the frontline of biodiversity conservation and have high intrinsic value. We assessed field stations’ conservation return on investment and explored the impact of COVID‐19. We surveyed leaders of field stations across tropical regions that host primate research; 157 field stations in 56 countries responded. Respondents reported improved habitat quality and reduced hunting rates at over 80% of field stations and lower operational costs per km 2 than protected areas, yet half of those surveyed have less funding now than in 2019. Spatial analyses support field station presence as reducing deforestation. These “earth observatories” provide a high return on investment; we advocate for increased support of field station programs and for governments to support their vital conservation efforts by investing accordingly