ANT 154B Course notes- Lecture _4

ANT 154B Course notes- Lecture _4 - ANT 154BN Course notes...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ANT 154BN Course notes Lecture #4: Feeding ecology I 13 January 2011 Key terms and concepts are indicated in blue Outline 1. Food composition 2. Feeding selectively 1. Food composition Primate food composition general goal: to maximize intake of good things while minimizing intake of bad stuff as foods contain different amounts of each, there is a “packaging problem” Good stuff (nutrients) macronutrients- required in large quantities (i.e., lots of calories) for growth and maintenance (includes carbohydrates, protein, and lipids) micronutrients- typically small quantities required, but crucially important in many physiological processes (includes vitamins and minerals) • Carbohydrates Monosaccharides: easily-digested, simple sugars Disaccharides: hydrolyzed into two monosaccharides in small intestine Polysaccharides: a) starch/ starch-like polysaccharides: broken down by amylase b) non-starch polysaccharides: fiber component soluble- not digestible as starch, but are fermentable insoluble: “structural carbohydrates” hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin. No vertebrate has cellulase; broken down by symbionts (e.g., protozoans, bacteria) Amylase production varies across great apes • Protein: provides energy, critical for growth and reproduction requirements increase 30% during critical growth & reproductive periods primate protein requirements generally low major sources: insects, leaves, other animal matter young leaves generally have higher protein frugivores always incorporate some leaves in diet (seeking protein?) ANT 154B Lecture #4 course notes • Lipids most highly concentrated form of energy influence neurotransmitter levels, lack of lipids result problems major sources: insects, animal matter, seeds, fruit arils page 2 of 7 little known about primate lipid intake, but generally appears to be low • Minerals macrominerals: Ca, P, Mg, K, Cl, etc. trace elements: Fe, Mn, Zn etc. ~ 4% of body weight, key functions generally obtained from leaves • Vitamins water soluble: B, C fat soluble: A, D, E, K little known, little studied Bad stuff (anti-feedants) Plant secondary compounds not involved in plant metabolism, growth, reproduction evolved (co-evolved) defenses against herbivory, seed predation • Toxins: poisons, interfere with physiology poisons, metabolically costly for plants, therefore rare absorbed through digestive tract, have specific toxic effects consumers evolve counterstrategies (microbial, enzymatic, pica) rates of enzymatic activity scale negatively with body size • Tannins: digestion inhibitors, interfere with energy uptake metabolically cheap for plants, therefore common (e.g., 95% tropical trees) found in mature leaves, unripe fruit, seeds reduce digestibility, bind proteins rendering them indigestible generally avoided by primates (i.e., selected against) • Other anti-feedants fiber, lignin primate tend to avoid swallowing high fiber foods (cf., wadging) “selection” of protein/fiber frequently cited in colobines ANT 154B Lecture #4 course Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1987.16:339-364. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD COLLEGE on 03/16/05. For personal use only. example,the concentrationof protein, fiber, and secondary etabolites in m leaves varies with maturity ndoften the successionalstage of the plant (49, a 67, 68, 78, 79, 90, 135, 139, 151, 152, 225,226). Theavailability of these nutrients to leaf-eating primatesis moredependent n dental and digestive o adaptations,rates of foodpassage, anddietary selectivity thanon the rate at which leaves are consumed. Thus, general assumptions regarding the relationship betweenfeeding rate andenergyintake, whenapplied to folinotes vores, are poorpredictors of foraging behavior. page 3 of 7 Carbohydrates Protein Protein Ripe Fru~s Fat Fat Simole S~,omolex complex imple Carbs Comoounds Patchiness compounds Seconda~/ Secondary Reterences “Patchiness” 65, 72,92, 93, Ripe fruits 97,104, 139, 212,225 Unripe fruits 49,67,69.77. 78.79, 90, 94, 135,139,142, 149,225,226 141, 193.195. 15,37,49,54, UnripeFruits ImmatureLeaves Young leaves Mature Leaves Mature leaves Seeds/Nuts Seeds 135,142,165, 47, 65, 94,134, 193,195, 225 Flowers Flowers Nectar Nectar 7, 8, 41, 55,56, 97,107,139, 225.232 Corms 47, Corms 165, 193, Grasses 225 Gums Gums Saps 6,12, 39,59, 86,97, 147,232 21,31,93, 9 Inverts5, 214,224,229 Saps invertebrates 96,97,100,182, Figure Relativeutritional quality (and o 1 n q aa e b Relative nutritionaluality nd vailabilityf foods aten ynonhuman availability) primates. of nonhuman primate foods Thursday, January 14, 2010 Selectivity = 18 use/availability Garber 1987 2. Feeding selectively Reminder: use (aka importance) ≠ selectivity Selectivity = use relative to availability use (e.g., % of diet, use of canopy strata, time in positive association with a particular individual) / ion ct ele or” e s n “f iv io t sit po elec s / ion ct t” ele ains es g tiv n “a o ga ne ecti l se availability (e.g., % of total available resources, relative availability of canopy stratum, time near a particular individual) Goal: generate a dynamic, predictive theory of primate diet selection Socio-ecological theory: separate preferred/fallback foods, get realistic measures of food density and distribution Co-evolutionary ecology: develop ecologically informed hypotheses about the co-evolution of primates and plants Community niche theory: resource partitioning and competition among primate species and other vertebrates Conservation biology: aid in management of small populations Thursday, January 14, 2010 20 Examples of studies of primate feeding selectivity • case studies, from 3 continents, to highlight some more general concepts • highlight the importance of careful reading of scientific literature ANT 154B Lecture #4 course notes Example #1: Masked Titi Monkeys (Heiduck 1997, selected at random) Food Choice in Masked Titi Monkeys page 4 of 7 493 Substantial variation in: resource availability Fig. 3 . M o n t h l y v a r i a t i o n i n f r u i t , y o u n g l e a f , a n d t o t a l f o o d availability. Means are derived from 2-3 observation days per month. Correlation between f r u i t and leaf availability: Pearson correlation, r = 0.41, p = 0.18, N = 12. Differences in t o t a l food availability between months: one-way ANOVA, F1U4 = 20.96, p < 0.001. Heiduck 494 diet composition only in protein content, with young leaves showing the highest contents and fleshy f r u i t parts showing the lowest. Other trends were apparent, but not significant, such as higher carbohydrate content of fleshy fruit parts, higher ADF content of young leaves, and higher t a n n i n content of seeds and young leaves. Abundance tended to be higher for fleshy fruit species than for those used for feeding on seeds and young leaves. Seasonality in Food Availability and Choice of Food Types “There is no variation in the time spent feeding on fleshy fruit parts.” Heiduck 1997: 494 Thursday, January 14, 2010 Analysis of the phenological data showed clear seasonality in food availability for the masked titi monkeys (Fig. 3). Although the correlation betweenFif r u4i.t Mantd lyyvauintg nleiafmaavadlalbilitdynigs tinotspseingninfidiafnrtentofrootdheypm.onthly o r a io n e n ia i y f e e i m e cf e f g. on h to t es t is p y itivel A or y f et a ts d J means, iOne-waosANOVy .cFlesrhelartuid pbras:eF113on=the3,phe=ol.o05.cal avos:sF1r3vat=ons at 1.2 p n 0 3gi Le eb e1 5 i . , < 0 00 e rso s c 1 rr = 19 , r .0 1 2-week i4n1t4erpvals .(P1.aSeedn: F1o|35 ela4t.io,np <'0= 00..43, p < 0.05, N = 26). In order to assess changes in overall food availability, I combined the availability scores for fruit and young leaves. There is a lean season with low food = 0.88, p < 0.001, N = 12). The lean season corresponds with the cool availsabiloty fromthAugustseunonl wichober war94eanima oicthe eyearn with higher i ti O t t the 19 m r t d e r f h s aso . eas n, and e rich as food avaFlgurieit4 shoms Jhe ueasonaltilaMairon in995. tSeasonalitykied ftotod availiiab l y fr ow t an sary un v riat ch 1 the ime the mas n i i monabilikyycospenates ewiinh onealnshy ofnuhtlypaets,pleraatesreanPeseeds. There is no, r t e s rrel t fe d t g m f e m r t i t r m e v u , (d arson correlation variation in the time spent feeding on fleshy fruit parts. Although there is variation in time spent feeding on leaves, this is not correlated with seasonal young leaf availability (Pearson correlation, r = -0.26, p = 0.42, N = 12) or with total food availability (r = -0.18, p = 0.57). However, time spent feeding on seeds is negatively correlated with food availability (r = -0.65, p = 0.02). T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f chemical c o m p o n e n t s a n d a b u n d a n c e o f f l e s h y fruit parts and seeds between the lean and the rich seasons (Table II) shows only a significant difference in the protein contents of fleshy f r u i t parts. The fleshy f r u i t parts in the lean season have higher protein contents than those in the rich season. The increase in ADF and decrease in lipids Heiduck fruit par 497 and carbohydrates for fleshy1997: ts in the lean season are not significant, nor are the carbohydrate increase and ADF and tannin decrease for seeds. There is also a trend to a lower abundance of fleshy f r u i t species in the lean season. I excluded young leaves from this comparison because four of the five young leaf species eaten in the rich season are also eaten in the lean season. 25 492 Heiduck “Throughout the year, masked titi monkeys preferred fleshy fruit parts over seeds and young leaves.” Fig. 2. Proportions of d i f f e r e n t food types in the diet of Callicebus personatus melanochir. Data represent a group m e a n derived from 3491 feeding sample points. Use p 0.000 Table I. Comparison of Chemical Composition and Abundance of Different Food Types Eaten by Callicebus personatus melanochira Fleshy f r u i t parts Protein (mg/g) Lipid (mg/g) Carbohydrate (mg/g) Energy (kJ/g) ADF (mg/g) Tannin (rel. u n i t ) Abundance (ind./1200 m2) 4.7 ± 2.3 (19)° 8.9 ± 14.2 (16) 61.3 ± 15.5 (15) 14.4 ± 4.6 (15) 24.8 ± 13.6 (15) 3.4 ± 3.1 (19) 3.1 ± 3.4 (14) Seeds 9.2 ± 4.6 (11)* 18.3 ± 20.5 (8) 47.0 ± 35.2 (8) 16.4 ± 4.5 (8) 24.8 ± 18.3 (8) 9.4 ± 8.1 (11) 1.6 ± 1.8 (8) Young leaves F df 2.32 22.2 ± 6.2 42.54 (5)c 2.2 ± 1.5 1.88 (5) 43.2 ± 12.2 1.78 (5) 11.8 ± 1.4 1.83 (5) 32.4 ± 8.2 0.57 (5) 8.4 ± 14.2 2.82 (5) 1.4 ± 0.8 1.10 Availability Food Choice in Masked Titi Monkeys Table IV. Pearson Correlations (r) Between Percentages of Time Spent Feeding on D i f f e r e n t Food Species and Their Chemical Composition and Abundance in D i f f e r e n t Seasons Rich season 2.26 0.172 2.25 0.120 2.25 0.182 2.25 0.573 497 2.32 0.075 2.23 0.348 (4) evidenceon wiselectivity?season Correlati of t h Lean Protein Lipid Carbohydrate Energy "Values are means ± standard deviations, w i t h sample sizes in parentheses. The statistics indicate differences between food types (one-way ANOVA). Different superscripts i n d i c a t e groups differing with p < 0.05 (Tukey HSD for unequal N; Spjotvoll/Stoline test). were eaten predominantly in a ripe state, I analyzed only ripe fruits. I compared chemical composition and abundance for the three main food types: fleshy f r u i t parts, seeds, and young leaves (Table I). There is clear variation -0.28 (14)" -0.00 (0.1)6 12 26 Thursday, January 14, 2010 ADF Tannin Abundance "Sample size in parentheses. *p < 0.01. (11) 0.15 (11) -0.21 (11) -0.02 (14) 0.84* (10) -0.24 (26) -0.08 (21) 0.32 (21) 0.11 (21) -0.32 (21) -0.11 (26) 0.85* (19) is a positive correlation between the time spent feeding and the abundance of the food species. ANT 154B Lecture #4 course notes page 5 of 7 Paper’s stated conclusion: “opportunistic foraging seems to be the optimal strategy” Heiduck 1997: 498 1. No assessment of preference, so how could preference be detected? 2. Didn’t measure: mechanical properties of the fruits, crop size, toxins, etc 3. Other potential shortcomings Key points: 1) this is a complicated topic 2) there are lots of potential confounds Example #2: Black Colobus (McKey et al 1981, not selected at random; the assigned reading) • quite representative of what was done at the time, and what is still often being done D. 8. McKEY ET AL. M A M J J A S O N D J F M 17 94 Month I7 95 B 132 D. B. McKEY E T A l . . Table 9. Relationships among nutrienddigestion-inhibitorratios and use by Culo0u.s salnnas (number offeeding records) ( n = 20) Figure 2. A. Intermonthly variation in the proportions of seeds ( O ) ,mature leaves R),oung leaves y ( V ) ,flCal buds (a)observed to be eaten by black colobus during systematic samples ( n o data for or T N - M 17 94 N ADF M J J A S O N D J F M N Month P (ADF+CT) 17 95 Ash N + 10P+Ash (ADF+CT) 0.70*'* 0.72*** 0.80*'* 0.81*** 0.82*** ' l ' i i l ) I c 3 . Composition o f leaf portion of' Colobus snlnnns diet, systematic sariiplcs, March 1973-March 1974 K e y : see Table 5 . r= April 1974). B . Intermonthly variation in the availability of preferred seed (0and young leaf ) lbod items. (ADF+CT) (ADF+CT) m) ( N +lOP+Ash)RDIC (ADF+ CT) 0.89*** 0.67** E\,l*rgrl*Cll trws i i i i c l sllrlll~s Preferencefor seeds I1 517 19.7 45.8 3 I19 224 141 19 0 4 4 .4 0 7 535 225 Colobus sutanI72 clear0 y p1refer0 seed1s to 1most 2l.9a7.3 items, as indicated by the a6r l 27 0 ef 1. 4 9 3 49 15 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 following facts. (i) See3 s always accounted fo24 a0.29 l02..4ast 27% of monthly feeding r 0. e t1 0 0 2d 1 0 records, even d7uring47periods when 2avail31bi1l30ty of suitable seeds was very low. a 1i 2 29 19 2 289 1. 0.8 . . 80 1 1 Seeds compris61e33d up411..8to 25.0 %0.7of m.9 21.2 43f0eeding records when they were 96 1.7 1 onthly 1 .0 2. abundant. (ii)Mature leaf food items, which were present in virtually constant quantity throughout the year, were fed u p o n less extensively when highly favoured seed items were present. (iii) Individual seed items comprised much higher proportions of monthly diets than did individual mature leaf o r young leaf items, indicating that voluntary intake of food is greatest from seed items. In 1 1 of the last 12 systematic samples, the most heavily used food item was a seed and accounted for up to 60% of records in a month. Individual young leaf items never accounted for more than 27.5% of any month's records, and usually the most heavily used young leaf item accounted for 13-18% of the monthly records. N o mature leaf item ever accounted for more than 9.6% of the diet records for any month. O u r data show that seeds contain lower concentrations of TP and CT, and a r e 0 % o f %ol' Deciduous total leal trcw Vines Epiphytes Mistletoes Indct. Total dirt diet Bio/o&icdJournal o f t h e Linncan Society (19811, 16: 115-146. With 6 figures Food selection by black colobus monkeys (Colobus satanas) in relation to plant chemistry* DOYLE B. MXKEY, J. S T E P H E N G A R T L A N Primate Ecology Unit, WisconsinRegional Primate Research Center, 1223 Capitol Court, Madison, W I 53706, U . S . A . P E T E R G . WATERMAN, F.L.S.? A N D G I L L I A N . C H O O M ion ratio lndet Flacourtiaceae E Slrombosiap w l u l a l a E E Symphonia globulgera E Diospyros p c i l e s c c n s E Baihiaea insibmis ANT 154B Lecture #4 ecourse notes Ind t. 4C E Coelocaryonpreusii E E Anlhonolha p a c i l l i p o r a E Ouralea afjSnis E Slrephonema mannii E Beilschmedia sp. Antidesma vogelianum E Calculation of selection Indet. N o . 13 E BY lndet. N o . 20 E Table 1--continued E Diospyros hoyleana Toubaouate brevipaniculala E S.R. Barleria.jslulosa E S.R. Garcinia conrauana E E Rubiaceae 1481 E Millelia sp. ? Garcinia o v a l ~ o l i a E Indet. sp. 5 E FOOD S E L E C T I O N COLOBUS SATANAS 4 5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 Deciduous % or Number of- Basal Mature leaves Young leaves Seeds cvergrwn individuals area N o . No. N o . S.R. E D E Feeding records 2 2 1 4 3 2 2 ratios 2 1 1 I 1 123 1 0 0 71 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.34 0 0 0 0 Species not encountered in enumeration b u t present in the home range and known to be used 1 Selection ratio c a r a n p barleri Ma Trichilia renheri M a c a r a n p barleri Hauvolfra vomiloria Mareyopsis lonbviolia Panda oleosa Cola sp. Trichilia renheri Xylopia aethiopica Berlinia auriculala lndet Flacourtiaceae Slrombosiap w l u l a l a Symphonia globulgera Diospyros p c i l e s c c n s Baihiaea insibmis Indet. 4C Coelocaryonpreusii Anlhonolha p a c i l l i p o r a Ouralea afjSnis Slrephonema mannii Beilschmedia sp. Antidesma vogelianum Indet. N o . 13 lndet. N o . 20 Diospyros hoyleana Toubaouate brevipaniculala Barleria.jslulosa Garcinia conrauana Rubiaceae 1481 Millelia sp. Garcinia o v a l ~ o l i a Indet. sp. 5 1 1 4 5 0.8 0. I 0.7 0.5 0.5 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 3 1 2 2 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 E E 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2.09 0 2.34 0 0 0 0 0 34 24.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.90 0 0 Species not encountered in enumeration b u t present in the home range and known to be used E E E E E 0 0 Hauvolfra vomiloria Mareyopsis lonbviolia Panda oleosa Cola sp. D 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 11.10 0 0 82 239.00 0 0 13 37.90 11 32.01 283 343 D E E E E E 0 0 89 31.71 0 0 43 21.45 0 0 0 0 3 1.87 0 0 5 1 31.80 8 6.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9.98 1 2.49 0 0 0.12 0 0 13.59 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 1 1 34 24.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.90 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 21.45 71 13.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.87 0 0 0 0 page06 of 7 0 5 1 31.80 13 3.11 8 6.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9.98 0 0 1 2.49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21.43 0 0 7 11.46 1 2.49 3 7.48 0 0 11.77 15 14.35 0 0 21 25.84. 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 N u m b e r 0 1 teeding records accounted f o r Total number o t r e c o r d s t r o m tree species 351 401 1037 1045 N u m b e r 0 1 teeding records accounted f o r Total nusmiunu ir bo ftar e cmort dbsntdrnt m , twhethersapeciesis measured by be s y r the o s a u ao tree ree bundance tuff Thursday, January 14, 2010 Data obtained from systematic sampling o f m a i n study group,March 1914-March 1975. * These three used species a r e dioecious and actual selection ratios will depend u p o n sex ratios. % o tree feeding records f o r the item class concerned accounted f o r by sp. A f S.R.=selection ratio = % o f total basal area accounted for by sp. A i n Strip 1 enumeration Enumeration 01'Strip 1 based o n all trees with a girth at breast height of)dOcm. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 11.10 0 82 239.00 0 0 13 37.90 11 32.01 0 4 11 21.43 0 0 7 11.46 1 2.49 3 7.48 0 0 351 401 11.77 15 14.35 0 0 21 25.84. 0 0 0 0 15 parts of d s uo m systematic hoampling a f m rom s dy w ,s va Data obteainetnhe ftrandgroup's range.f Itthe arsange,weavnedr, wiarstuulnlyoobsentn fa isnthe tudy group,March 1914-March 1975. xtreme orth north-west o c mmo in ome ir he ommon * Theseaadjacentedeefors,ssucda2.ss%tripf 1i1. Lophaurateetudtioeciousasallargeeaemergent,sal selection ratios will depend u p o n sex ratios. thr t ar a nlyh S o ndividual lru es, butm1ost.4c% of b a nrd anctwa ccoune u oe 6 pecies 5 a adu common throughout most of the study group's range. The enumerations % o treeusfeeding erdew ords f o r the item class concerned accounted f o r by sp. A f c ua a S.R.=seiplndicatedosn ratciloma=bldeistributions,rainagellyndsssocliattexture,ithorosbviousl ecti trongly u ped hysical-environmental v ria s such as d a oi f evera % o f total basal area accounted for by sp. A i n Strip 1 enumeration Enumeration 01'Strip 1 based o n all trees with a girth at breast height of)dOcm. frequency o r by basal area. This species is the most frequent tree in all size classes up to 175 an circumference (McKey, 1978a)and occurs in high density in many McKey et al. 1981 32 283 343 1037 1045 14, 2010 Limitations of colobineency o r by frequ study: stuffiunu is by far the most abundant tree, whether abundance is measured by basal area. This species is the most frequent tree in all size classes up to 175 an circumference (McKey, 1978a)and occurs in high density in many parts of the study group's range. It was, however, virtually absent from the extreme north and north-west of the range, and was uncommon in some adjacent areas, such as Strip 11. Lophiru alutu, the most common large emergent, accounted for only 2.6% of individual trees but 15.4% of basal area and was common throughout most of the study group's range. The enumerations indicated strongly clumped distributions, usually associated with obvious physical-environmental variables such as drainage and soil texture, for several McKey et al Do protein to fiber ratios limit colobine populations? • generally weak evidence that protein/fiber preferred • poor consideration of temporal variation in food availability • focus on mature leaves (which relatively unimportant, ~ 10% of diet) • measure most abundant tree species, not food species • small sample sizes • limited theoretical support for the concept of preferred foods limiting population density ANT 154B Lecture #4 course notes page 7 of 7 Many early studies of primate nutritional ecology were of limited utility because they: • were based an item’s importance in the diet, which tells nothing about selectivity, or what things are being selected for; • were accompanied by unsupported assumptions about what dietary elements are most important (e.g., for determining population density); • did not control for crucially important temporal variation in food availability; • made it hard to assess independent effects of variables; • included only chemical variables (i.e., ignored ecologically relevant variables such as crop size, handling time, spatial distribution); • were based on non-independent feeding samples; • used small sample sizes; and • measured forest phenology poorly (small sample sizes, inappropriate samples, etc). Based on these lessons, we can make several general conclusions • Many factors potentially influence food choice • Many of these factors co-vary (i.e., protein, calories, fiber) • Require multivariate analyses to identify the importance of different components • Multivariate models should include all potentially important variables Take home messages 1. In general terms, primates optimize the tradeoff between intake of nutrients and antifeedants (the “packaging problem”). 2. You should understand the basic points about macro- and micro-nutrients and antifeedants. 3. Many studies of primate feeding selectivity are limited in some important ways, hampering our ability to assess their validity and interpret their significance. 4. The details in scientific papers matter. People have not always shown what they claim to have shown. Question to ponder President Obama has made you Primate Feeding Selectivity Czar, and your first task is assess the merit of graduate student research proposals. The first proposal you are to assess proposes a field study of the feeding selectivity of a newly discovered primate species in a forest fragment in Madagascar. Briefly outline the key elements that would be looking for in the study design, being sure to mention the field methods proposed to assess resource availability and feeding behavior, the proposed study duration in light of patterns of variation in food availability, the characteristics of foods that would be measured, and the how data would be analyzed ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/12/2011 for the course ANT 154bn taught by Professor Debello during the Winter '10 term at UC Davis.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online