Strategies for the Use of Fallback Foods in Apes

Researchers have suggested that fallback foods (FBFs) shape primate food processing adaptations, whereas preferred foods drive harvesting adaptations, and that the dietary importance of FBFs is central in determining the expression of a variety of traits. We examine these hypotheses in extant apes. First, we compare the nature and dietary importance of FBFs used by each taxon. FBF importance appears greatest in gorillas, followed by chimpanzees and siamangs, and least in orangutans and gibbons (bonobos are difficult to place). Next, we compare 20 traits among taxa to assess whether the relative expression of traits expected for consumption of FBFs matches their observed dietary importance. Trait manifestation generally conforms to predictions based on dietary importance of FBFs. However, some departures from predictions exist, particularly for orang-utans, which express relatively more food harvesting and processing traits predicted for consuming large amounts of FBFs than expected based on observed dietary importance. This is probably due to the chemical, mechanical, and phenological properties of the apes’ main FBFs, in particular high importance of figs for chimpanzees and hylobatids, compared to use of bark and leaves—plus figs in at least some Sumatran populations—by orang-utans. This may have permitted more specialized harvesting adaptations in chimpanzees and hylobatids, and required enhanced processing adaptations in orang-utans. Possible intercontinental differences in the availability and quality of preferred and FBFs may also be important. Our analysis supports previous hypotheses suggesting a critical influence of the dietary importance and quality of FBFs on ape ecology and, consequently, evolution

The bii4africa dataset of faunal and floral population intactness estimates across Africa’s major land uses

Sub-Saharan Africa is under-represented in global biodiversity datasets, particularly regarding the impact of land use on species’ population abundances. Drawing on recent advances in expert elicitation to ensure data consistency, 200 experts were convened using a modified-Delphi process to estimate ‘intactness scores’: the remaining proportion of an ‘intact’ reference population of a species group in a particular land use, on a scale from 0 (no remaining individuals) to 1 (same abundance as the reference) and, in rare cases, to 2 (populations that thrive in human-modified landscapes). The resulting bii4africa dataset contains intactness scores representing terrestrial vertebrates (tetrapods: ±5,400 amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and vascular plants (±45,000 forbs, graminoids, trees, shrubs) in sub-Saharan Africa across the region’s major land uses (urban, cropland, rangeland, plantation, protected, etc.) and intensities (e.g., large-scale vs smallholder cropland). This dataset was co-produced as part of the Biodiversity Intactness Index for Africa Project. Additional uses include assessing ecosystem condition; rectifying geographic/ taxonomic biases in global biodiversity indicators and maps; and informing the Red List of Ecosystems

The bii4africa dataset of faunal and floral population intactness estimates across Africa’s major land uses

International audienceSub-Saharan Africa is under-represented in global biodiversity datasets, particularly regarding the impact of land use on species' population abundances. Drawing on recent advances in expert elicitation to ensure data consistency, 200 experts were convened using a modified-Delphi process to estimate 'intactness scores': the remaining proportion of an 'intact' reference population of a species group in a particular land use, on a scale from 0 (no remaining individuals) to 1 (same abundance as the reference) and, in rare cases, to 2 (populations that thrive in human-modified landscapes). The resulting bii4africa dataset contains intactness scores representing terrestrial vertebrates (tetrapods: ±5,400 amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and vascular plants (±45,000 forbs, graminoids, trees, shrubs) in sub-Saharan Africa across the region's major land uses (urban, cropland, rangeland, plantation, protected, etc.) and intensities (e.g., large-scale vs smallholder cropland). This dataset was co-produced as part of the Biodiversity Intactness Index for Africa Project. Additional uses include assessing ecosystem condition; rectifying geographic/ taxonomic biases in global biodiversity indicators and maps; and informing the Red List of Ecosystems

bi4africa dataset - open source

The bii4africa dataset is presented in a multi-spreadsheet .ods file. The raw data spreadsheet (‘Scores_Raw’) includes 31,313 individual expert estimates of the impact of a sub-Saharan African land use on a species response group of terrestrial vertebrates or vascular plants. Estimates are reported as intactness scores - the remaining proportion of an ‘intact’ reference (pre-industrial or contemporary wilderness area) population of a species response group in a land use, on a scale from 0 (no individuals remain) through 0.5 (half the individuals remain), to 1 (same as the reference population) and, in limited cases, to 2 (two or more times the reference population). For species that thrive in human-modified landscapes, scores could be greater than 1 but not exceeding 2 to avoid extremely large scores biasing aggregation exercises. Expert comments are included alongside respective estimates

bii4africa dataset

The bii4africa dataset is presented in a multi-spreadsheet .xlsx file. The raw data spreadsheet (‘Scores_Raw’) includes 31,313 individual expert estimates of the impact of a sub-Saharan African land use on a species response group of terrestrial vertebrates or vascular plants. Estimates are reported as intactness scores - the remaining proportion of an ‘intact’ reference (pre-industrial or contemporary wilderness area) population of a species response group in a land use, on a scale from 0 (no individuals remain) through 0.5 (half the individuals remain), to 1 (same as the reference population) and, in limited cases, to 2 (two or more times the reference population). For species that thrive in human-modified landscapes, scores could be greater than 1 but not exceeding 2 to avoid extremely large scores biasing aggregation exercises. Expert comments are included alongside respective estimates