Limits...
The Development of Primate Raiding: Implications for Management and Conservation.

Strum SC - Int. J. Primatol. (2010)

Bottom Line: I here present the results from a unique opportunity to document how well-known individuals and groups respond to the new opportunity to feed on human foods.Some of the naïve research baboons became raiders while others did not.I end with a proposal for a rapid field assessment of human wildlife conflict involving primates.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Ecosystems and habitats are fast becoming human dominated, which means that more species, including primates, are compelled to exploit new human resources to survive and compete. Primate "pests" pose major management and conservation challenges. I here present the results from a unique opportunity to document how well-known individuals and groups respond to the new opportunity to feed on human foods. Data are from a long-term study of a single population in Kenya at Kekopey, near Gilgil, Kenya. Some of the naïve research baboons became raiders while others did not. I compare diet, activity budgets, and home range use of raiders and nonraiders both simultaneously, after the incursion of agriculture, and historically compared to the period before agriculture appeared. I present measures of the relative benefits (female reproduction) and costs (injuries, mortality, and survivorship) of incorporating human food into the diet and discuss why the baboons raid and their variations in raiding tendencies. Guarding and chasing are evaluated as control techniques. I also suggest conflict mitigation strategies by identifying the most likely options in different contexts. I end with a proposal for a rapid field assessment of human wildlife conflict involving primates.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Basic activities in raider and nonraider budgets across seasons and years. *Intratroop comparisons: p < 0.05, Tukey HSD test; **intertroop comparisons, Tukey HSD test
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2819593&req=5

Fig2: Basic activities in raider and nonraider budgets across seasons and years. *Intratroop comparisons: p < 0.05, Tukey HSD test; **intertroop comparisons, Tukey HSD test

Mentions: Raider diets diverged sharply from nonraider diets in all years and ecological periods because of the addition of human food (MANOVA, n = 41,694; troop effect, df = 1, F = 528.63; p < 0.001; troop/period interaction effect, df = 5, F = 36.79; p < 0.001; 6 ecological periods, 2 troops, 4 quantitative food variables: human, grass, herbs, other). Still, raiders did not completely switch to human food. They also ate natural foods, particularly grasses which was the major component of the nonraider diet but at a lower rate than nonraiders (Tukey post hoc test, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Even when the feeding budget converged again during the 1984 drought (Fig. 2), the 2 diets differed (n = 5195 for 1984 diet data, 1-way ANOVA, df = 1; F = 54.48, p < 0.001; 1 ecological period; 2 troops; 4 quantitative food variables: human, grass, herbs, other). The raider diet had significantly more human food (41.6% vs. 11.9%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001), and less grass (27.2% vs. 57.0%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001) and herb foods (0.5% vs. 4.9%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001) than the nonraider drought diet. Raiders did not differ from nonraiders in the other foods that contributed to the diet (32.7% vs. 28.0%, Tukey post hoc test p > 0.05). Thus raiders adjusted their diet during the drought. So did the nonraiders but the difference between them remained significant in 3 of the 4 major categories. Raiders, like nonraiders, had some dietary flexibility still.Fig. 2


The Development of Primate Raiding: Implications for Management and Conservation.

Strum SC - Int. J. Primatol. (2010)

Basic activities in raider and nonraider budgets across seasons and years. *Intratroop comparisons: p < 0.05, Tukey HSD test; **intertroop comparisons, Tukey HSD test
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2819593&req=5

Fig2: Basic activities in raider and nonraider budgets across seasons and years. *Intratroop comparisons: p < 0.05, Tukey HSD test; **intertroop comparisons, Tukey HSD test
Mentions: Raider diets diverged sharply from nonraider diets in all years and ecological periods because of the addition of human food (MANOVA, n = 41,694; troop effect, df = 1, F = 528.63; p < 0.001; troop/period interaction effect, df = 5, F = 36.79; p < 0.001; 6 ecological periods, 2 troops, 4 quantitative food variables: human, grass, herbs, other). Still, raiders did not completely switch to human food. They also ate natural foods, particularly grasses which was the major component of the nonraider diet but at a lower rate than nonraiders (Tukey post hoc test, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Even when the feeding budget converged again during the 1984 drought (Fig. 2), the 2 diets differed (n = 5195 for 1984 diet data, 1-way ANOVA, df = 1; F = 54.48, p < 0.001; 1 ecological period; 2 troops; 4 quantitative food variables: human, grass, herbs, other). The raider diet had significantly more human food (41.6% vs. 11.9%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001), and less grass (27.2% vs. 57.0%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001) and herb foods (0.5% vs. 4.9%, Tukey post hoc test p < 0.001) than the nonraider drought diet. Raiders did not differ from nonraiders in the other foods that contributed to the diet (32.7% vs. 28.0%, Tukey post hoc test p > 0.05). Thus raiders adjusted their diet during the drought. So did the nonraiders but the difference between them remained significant in 3 of the 4 major categories. Raiders, like nonraiders, had some dietary flexibility still.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: I here present the results from a unique opportunity to document how well-known individuals and groups respond to the new opportunity to feed on human foods.Some of the naïve research baboons became raiders while others did not.I end with a proposal for a rapid field assessment of human wildlife conflict involving primates.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT
Ecosystems and habitats are fast becoming human dominated, which means that more species, including primates, are compelled to exploit new human resources to survive and compete. Primate "pests" pose major management and conservation challenges. I here present the results from a unique opportunity to document how well-known individuals and groups respond to the new opportunity to feed on human foods. Data are from a long-term study of a single population in Kenya at Kekopey, near Gilgil, Kenya. Some of the naïve research baboons became raiders while others did not. I compare diet, activity budgets, and home range use of raiders and nonraiders both simultaneously, after the incursion of agriculture, and historically compared to the period before agriculture appeared. I present measures of the relative benefits (female reproduction) and costs (injuries, mortality, and survivorship) of incorporating human food into the diet and discuss why the baboons raid and their variations in raiding tendencies. Guarding and chasing are evaluated as control techniques. I also suggest conflict mitigation strategies by identifying the most likely options in different contexts. I end with a proposal for a rapid field assessment of human wildlife conflict involving primates.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus