Search for: All records

Two-toed sloths (genus Choloepus) are almost exclusively arboreal. However, they often descend to the ground in places known as mineral licks or “saladeros” and feed from soil, which presumably enhances their digestion of toxins and helps them obtain minerals not readily available in their diet. Mineral licks are risky areas which may increase their visitors’ vulnerability to predators. Here, we report a predation attempt on an adult Linnaeus two- toed sloth (Choloepus didactylus) by an adult ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) at a mineral lick at the Tiputini Biodi- versity Station in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Predation events are rarely recorded in camera traps, and this particular predation event can be considered unusual, given that sloths usually come down to mineral licks during the night. Also, it is not clear how ocelots are able to capture sloths, and other arboreal animals and this record evidence that predation of arboreal vertebrates by ocelots may also take place in the ground. Finally, the anti-predatory behavior displayed by the two-toed sloth demonstrates that there are intrinsic risks for predators while attempting to capture prey. 

Female mammals employ reproductive strategies (e.g., internal gestation) that result in power asymmetries specific to intersexual dyads. Because the number of eggs available for fertilization at any given time for most mammals is quite limited, having a fertilizable egg is potentially an important source of economic power for females. Control over mating opportunities is a source of intersexual leverage for female Verreaux’s sifaka ( Propithecus verreauxi ). We examined economic factors thought to influence the value of mating opportunities, and, thus, the extent of female leverage: kinship and market effects. Using a longitudinal dataset of agonistic interactions collected during focal animal sampling of all adult individuals in 10 social groups from 2008 to 2019, we tested the effects of relatedness, female parity, reproductive season, and adult sex ratio (population and group) on (1) the direction of submissive signaling and (2) which sex won a contested resource. While 96% of the acts of submission were directed from males toward females, females only won a third of their conflicts with males. Thus, our study has implications for evolutionary explanations of female-biased power. If female power evolved due to their greater need for food and other resources, then intersexual conflicts would be expected to result in males more consistently relinquishing control of resources. As expected, males were more likely to chatter submissively toward successful mothers, during the mating season, and when the sex ratio was male-biased. Although females generally had less power to win a conflict when their fertilizable egg was less valuable (when they were nulliparous or unsuccessful mothers or when interacting with male kin) and with an increasing female-bias in the sex ratio, this ability to win additionally was influenced by which sex initiated the conflict. Our study demonstrates that female leverage can be influenced by the supply and demand for mating opportunities, but evoking submission does not translate into winning a resource. Indeed, intersexual power is dynamic, contextual, and dependent on the individuals in the dyad. 

With their large body size and “slow” life histories, atelin primates are thought to follow a risk‐averse breeding strategy, similar to capital breeders, in which they accumulate energy reserves in anticipation of future reproductive events such as gestation and lactation. However, given the paucity of longitudinal data from wild populations, few studies to date have been able to compare the timing of reproductive events (e.g., copulations, conceptions, and births) in relation to shifting resource availability over multiple years. We examined the reproductive patterns of two atelin species — white‐bellied spider monkeys (Ateles belzebuth) and lowland woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii) — in relation to habitat‐wide estimates of fruit availability at the Tiputini Biodiversity Station (TBS) in Amazonian Ecuador. Our sample included 4 years of data on births (N = 36) and copulations (N = 170) for Lagothrix, 10 years of data on births (N = 35) and copulations (N = 74) for Ateles, and 7 years of data on ripe fruit availability. Reproductive events were distinctly seasonal. For both species, births were concentrated between May and September, a time period in which ripe fruit was relatively scarce, while inferred conceptions occurred between September and January, when ripe fruit availability was increasing and maintained at high levels throughout the forest. Interannual variation in births was relatively stable, except for in 2016 when twice as many infants were born following a strong El Niño event that may have led to unusually high levels of fruit productivity during the 2015 breeding season. Although copulations were observed year‐round, an overwhelming majority (>90% for Lagothrix and >80% for Ateles) took place between August and February when females were most likely to conceive. Collectively, these data follow the reproductive patterns observed in other atelin primates, and, as proposed by others, suggest that atelins may follow a risk‐averse breeding strategy. 

“Monogamy” and pair bonding have long been of interest to anthropologists and primatologists. Their study contributes to our knowledge of human evolutionary biology and social evolution without the cultural trappings associated with studying human societies directly. Here, we first provide an overview of theoretical considerations, followed by an evaluation of recent comparative studies of the evolution of “social monogamy”; we are left with serious doubts about the conclusions of these studies that stem from the often poor quality of the data used and an overreliance on secondary sources without vetting the data therein. We then describe our field research program on four “monogamous” platyrrhines (owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins), evaluate how well our data support various hypotheses proposed to explain “monogamy,” and compare our data to those reported on the same genera in comparative studies. Overall, we found a distressing lack of agreement between the data used in comparative studies and data from the literature for the taxa that we work with. In the final section, we propose areas of research that deserve more attention. We stress the need for more high-quality natural history data, and we urge researchers to be cautious about the uncritical use of variables of uncertain internal validity. Overall, it is imperative that biological anthropologists establish and follow clear criteria for comparing and combining results from published studies and that researchers, reviewers, and editors alike comply with these standards to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability of causal inferences made in comparative studies.