Activity and Habitat Use of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in the Anthropogenic Landscape of Bossou, Guinea, West Africa

Many primate populations inhabit anthropogenic landscapes. Understanding their long-term ability to persist in such environments and associated real and perceived risks for both primates and people is essential for effective conservation planning. Primates in forest–agricultural mosaics often consume cultivars to supplement their diet, leading to potentially negative encounters with farmers. When crossing roads, primates also face the risk of encounters with people and collision with vehicles. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in Bossou, Guinea, West Africa, face such risks regularly. In this study, we aimed to examine their activity budget across habitat types and the influence of anthropogenic risks associated with cultivated fields, roads, and paths on their foraging behavior in noncultivated habitat. We conducted 6-h morning or afternoon follows daily from April 2012 to March 2013. Chimpanzees preferentially used forest habitat types for traveling and resting and highly disturbed habitat types for socializing. Wild fruit and crop availability influenced seasonal habitat use for foraging. Overall, chimpanzees preferred mature forest for all activities. They showed a significant preference for foraging at >200 m from cultivated fields compared to 0–100 m and 101–200 m, with no effect of habitat type or season, suggesting an influence of associated risk. Nevertheless, the chimpanzees did not actively avoid foraging close to roads and paths. Our study reveals chimpanzee reliance on different habitat types and the influence of human-induced pressures on their activities. Such information is critical for the establishment of effective land use management strategies in anthropogenic landscapes

Ape Conservation Physiology: Fecal Glucocorticoid Responses in Wild Pongo pygmaeus morio following Human Visitation

Nature-based tourism can generate important revenue to support conservation of biodiversity. However, constant exposure to tourists and subsequent chronic activation of stress responses can produce pathological effects, including impaired cognition, growth, reproduction, and immunity in the same animals we are interested in protecting. Utilizing fecal samples (N = 53) from 2 wild habituated orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) (in addition to 26 fecal samples from 4 wild unhabituated orangutans) in the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, we predicted that i) fecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations would be elevated on the day after tourist visitation (indicative of normal stress response to exposure to tourists on the previous day) compared to samples taken before or during tourist visitation in wild, habituated orangutans, and ii) that samples collected from habituated animals would have lower fecal glucocorticoid metabolites than unhabituated animals not used for tourism. Among the habituated animals used for tourism, fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels were significantly elevated in samples collected the day after tourist visitation (indicative of elevated cortisol production on the previous day during tourist visitation). Fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels were also lower in the habituated animals compared to their age-matched unhabituated counterparts. We conclude that the habituated animals used for this singular ecotourism project are not chronically stressed, unlike other species/populations with documented permanent alterations in stress responses. Animal temperament, species, the presence of coping/escape mechanisms, social confounders, and variation in amount of tourism may explain differences among previous experiments. Acute alterations in glucocorticoid measures in wildlife exposed to tourism must be interpreted conservatively. While permanently altered stress responses can be detrimental, preliminary results in these wild habituated orangutans suggest that low levels of predictable disturbance can likely result in low physiological impact on these animals

Ruralization of students’ horizons: insights into Australian health professional students’ rural and remote placements

Tony Smith,1 Merylin Cross,2 Susan Waller,3 Helen Chambers,3 Annie Farthing,4 Frances Barraclough,5 Sabrina W Pit,6 Keith Sutton,3 Kuda Muyambi,7 Stephanie King,8 Jessie Anderson4 1Department of Rural Health, University of Newcastle, Taree, NSW, 2Centre for Rural Health, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, 3Department of Rural Health, Monash University, Moe, VIC, 4Centre for Remote Health, Flinders University, Alice Springs, NT, 5University Centre for Rural Health, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW, 6University Centre for Rural Health, University of Western Sydney, Lismore, NSW, NSW, 7Department of Rural Health, University of South Australia, Whyalla, SA, 8Centre for Rural and Remote Health, James Cook University, Mt Isa, QLD, Australia Introduction: Health workforce shortages have driven the Australian and other Western governments to invest in engaging more health professional students in rural and remote placements. The aim of this qualitative study was to provide an understanding of the lived experiences of students undertaking placements in various nonmetropolitan locations across Australia. In addition to providing their suggestions to improve rural placements, the study provides insight into factors contributing to positive and negative experiences that influence students’ future rural practice intentions. Methods: Responses to open-ended survey questions from 3,204 students from multiple health professions and universities were analyzed using two independent methods applied concurrently: manual thematic analysis and computerized content analysis using Leximancer software. Results: The core concept identified from the thematic analysis was “ruralization of students’ horizons,” a construct representing the importance of preparing health professional students for practice in nonmetropolitan locations. Ruralization embodies three interrelated themes, “preparation and support,” “rural or remote health experience,” and “rural lifestyle and socialization,” each of which includes multiple subthemes. From the content analysis, factors that promoted students’ rural practice intentions were having a “positive” practice experience, interactions with “supportive staff,” and interactions with the “community” in general. It was apparent that “difficulties,” eg, with “accommodation,” “Internet” access, “transport,” and “financial” support, negatively impacted students’ placement experience and rural practice intentions. Conclusions: The study findings have policy and practice implications for continuing to support students undertaking regional, rural, and remote placements and preparing them for future practice in nonmetropolitan locations. This study may, therefore, further inform ongoing strategies for improving rural placement experiences and enhancing rural health workforce recruitment, retention, and capacity building. Keywords: clinical placement, fieldwork, multidisciplinary, practice placement, rural health workforce, undergraduate educatio