ANT 154B Course notes- Lecture _13

ANT 154B Course notes- Lecture _13 - 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 #13: Niches & inter-specific competition 17 February 2011 Key terms and concepts are indicated in blue Outline 1. Niche theory 2. Competition among primate species 3. Competition with other species 1. Niche theory The niche: one of the most important concepts in ecology, but one of the hardest to define Examples of definitions of a niche: environmental factors that influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of a species the limits, for all important environmental features, within which individuals of a species can survive, grow, and reproduce how a species makes a living; its role in the community, the environmental conditions it tolerates, the important resources it needs to survive, and its ways of obtaining those resources Competitive exclusion principle: no two organisms can occupy the exactly same niche Niche theory: resource partitioning, niche overlap, and inter-specific competition The “Hutchinsonian” Niche niche as “an n dimensional hypervolume, enclosing the complete range of conditions under which an organism can reproduce itself” In theory, all variables relevant to the life history of an organism must be included, and each must be independent of the others. ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes page 2 of 8 A, C A use of second dimension F D E B AB B C F E E, F D CD use of first dimension Thursday, February 18, 2010 10 Fundamental niche: the niche an organism would occupy in the absence of competition, predation, and other biotic interactions that limit the organism. An abstraction. Realized niche: the niche an organism actually occupies in a given environment. Possibly real, but very hard to measure in real life. Niche Partitioning and Diversity As a new area is colonized, very little competition, realized niches similar to fundamental niches As the habitat fills up, more competition, realized niches become smaller and more specialized species sorting: species that are out-competed or driven extinct by predation, go extinct Compression hypothesis species poor community species rich community species B species A species A species C habitat types species B species D species E species F species G species B foods within habitat foods within habitat Utility of the niche concept Thursday, February 18, 2010 after MacArthur & Wilson 1967 13 Niches are theoretical abstractions Useful in conceptualizing ecological concepts Most organisms partition niche space based on: habitat type occupied resources used (food, nest sites, etc.) when resources used * ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes Competitive exclusion principle Ecological time scale page 3 of 8 Other finch species dietary overlap with medium Other finch species’ dietary overlap with medium ground finch differs by season ground finch differs by season FBF and niche differentiation A, C A C F D E B A B C,D E F % dietary overlap use of fallback foods F D E B low food availability high use of preferred food resources Thursday, February 18, 2010 18 Thursday, February 18, 2010 Evolutionary time scale e.g., habitat segregation by Anolis lizards 17 ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes Character displacement page 4 of 8 ISL these patterns are not universal:AND Petroica NICHE AND FORAGING Little evidence of character displacement sympatric allopatric BLACK T I 1 N=97 p e r c e n t of observations 1%) McLean et al. 1994 Thursday, February 18, 2010 23 3 L A C K ROBIN NZ ROBIN ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes Asymmetric competition e.g., gibbons and leaf monkeys page 5 of 8 Overlap indices have important effects Overlap indices have important effects Species A Species B 15 ABBBBBCCCDDDDDE number of observations 10 AAAAAAABBC Items consumed in common ABC 100% (3/3) ABBC 40% (4/10) 27% (4/15) 27 60% (3/5) True overlap Thursday, February 18, 2010 2. Competition among primate species Competition: “Competition is any use or defense of a resource by one individual that reduces the availability of that resource to other individuals” Ricklefs (2007) Inter-specific competition occurs when: 1. two or more species use the same resources 2. resources are limited in abundance or availability Potential primate responses to fruit scarcity • increase utilization of few remaining fruit resources Dietary overlap reduced during lean seasons 100 • fallback on different food resources Dietary overlap reduced during lean seasons % species paris % feeding time on chimpanzee foods Redtail monkeys r = 0.72, p < 0.01 Blue monkeys r = 0.85, p < 0.001 23 pairs of sympatri primates 0 low fruit period seasonal diet divergence high fruit period fruit availability Kibale primates, Wrangham et al. 1998 Thursday, February 18, 2010 31 Wase Thursday, February 18, 2010 re XX: Diet overlap between gibbons and other important vertebrate frugivores in peat forests. The y-axis lists percent of overlap gibbon diets (a measure incorporating both dietary composition and the frequency of items in the diet), the x-axis denotes three ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes ds of differing food availability (abbreviations follow Figure 4-check#). Black boxes and lines indicate, respectively, the mean pper and lower 95% limits of expected overlap with gibbons based on 1000 randomly drawn diets. Open circles indicate rved dietary overlap with gibbons. The top row of graphs shows data for vertebrate species (abbreviations follow Figure 2), the m row shows data for vertebrate families (abbreviations follow Figure 2). 1 1 1 1 1 periods of higher food availability (H2A) received mixed support. For most species the results were very similar between peat and non-peat forests; on the family level most patterns were broadly similar between forest t y p e s , b u t w e n o t e s o m e d i f f e r e n c e s . As predicted, the diets of both orangutans and leaf monkeys diverged significantly from gibbon diets during periods of food scarcity and showed greater overlap during periods of resource abundance in both peat and nonpeat forests (Figs. 6 and 7). But, contrary to our prediction, in both peat and non-peat forests food availability had no effect on the degree to which the diets of Prevost’s squirrels, long-tailed macaques, and tended to exhibit high dietary overlap with gibbons during periods of high food availability and reduced levels of overlap when resources were relatively scarce in both forest types. A similar pattern was observable for Bucerotidae in non-peat forests and Cercopithecidae in peat forest, but not for hornbills in peat forests or cercopithecine monkeys in the non-peat forests. These patterns demonstrate that ecological interactions between vertebrate taxa can vary in different habitat types. Finally, the overlap between barbets (Megalaimidae) and gibbons was unrelated to food availability (Figs. 6 and 7). page 6 of 8 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap .8 .6 .4 .2 0 LFP HFP 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 LFP HFP 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 LFP HFP Dietary overlap 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 LFP Figure 8: Diameter of feeding trees of gibbons and their major competitors. The boxplots depict the diameter of feeding trees for each vertebrate taxon, showing the median (black horizontal lines), interquartile range (gray boxes), extent of points within 1.5 of the quartile range (upper and lower range lines), and outliers (points). Red leaf monkeys (PR) and orangutans (PP) fed in significantly larger trees than did all other taxa (* Tukey-Kramer HSD q> 2.82, p < 0.05); the size of trees fed in by gibbons (HA) did not differ significantly from Prevost’s squirrel (CP), long-tailed macaques (MF), or rhinoceros hornbills (BR). Sample sizes for each taxon are given above initials. Gibbons feed in smaller trees than two major primate competitors * * 0.4 peat forest 0.2 0 LFP HFP 160 140 Size of feeding trees (cm dbh) 120 XY: Diet overlap between gibbons and other important vertebrate frugivores in non-peat forests. Explanation and FK KL OH RH ations as in Figure XY. 1 1 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP HFP HFP HFP HFP HFP .8 1 .6 0.8 .4 0.6 .2 0.4 0 0.2 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 dryland 0.4 0 0.2 forest 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap leaf monkeys 1 orangutans 1 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 HFP 100 80 60 40 20 0 N= UR 0 PONGI 0 FK 1 CERCO 0 KL 1 BUCER 0 OH 1 MEGAL 0 RH 1 MAST MAST MAST MAST MAST 30 CP CP 128 FK MF 48 GN HA 44 HB BR 46 KL PR 301 OH PP HFP HFP HFP HFP HFP Prevost’s Long-tailed Squirrel macaques Gibbons Rhino hornbill Leaf monkey Orangutan 1 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Marshall et al. 2008 35 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 MAST LFP HFP 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 Marshall et al. 2009 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Thursday, February 18, 2010 Thursday, February 18, 2010 0.6 V0.4 ogel et al. orangutan vs. gibbon comparison 0.4 0.4 0.2 0 LFP 33 Orangutans feed on tougher foods than gibbons 0 0 MAST MAST MAST 0.2 0.2 IUR PONGI Orangutans feed on harder foods than gibbons? CERCO BUCER MEGAL feeding competition 13 Marshall et al.: Community-wide feeding competition MAST LFP LFP HFP HFP HFP LFP HFP 13 3. Competition with other species Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Dietary overlap upper and lower 95% limits of expected overlapoverlap with gibbon diets (a measure incorporating both dietary composition and the frequency of items in the diet). Black box with gibbons based on 1000 randomly drawn diets. Open indicate, respectively, the mean and upper and lower 95% limits rlap with gibbons. Non-primategraphs shows data for vertebrate species (abbreviations follow Figure 2), of expected overlap with gibbons based on 1000 randomly dra The top row of frugivores are potentially important competitors of gibbons iet overlap between gibbons and other importantcircles indicate observed dietary overlap with gibbons. The top lists percent ofshows data for vertebrate species (abbreviations brate families (abbreviations follow important vertebrate frugivores in peat and non-peat forests. The y-axis row of graphs iet overlap between gibbons and otherFigure 3). vertebrate frugivores in peat and non-peat forests. The y-axis lists percent of the bottom row shows data for and in the diet). Black boxes and lines n diets (a measure incorporating both dietary composition and the frequency of vertebrate families (abbreviations follow Figure 3).and non-peat forests. The y-axis lists percent o Figure 5: Overall diet overlap between gibbonsitemsother important vertebrate frugivores in peat n diets (a measure incorporating both dietary composition and the frequency of items in the diet). Black boxes and lines overlap with expected overlap with incorporating on 1000 randomly drawn diets. frequency of items in the diet). Black boxes and lines ly, the mean and upper and lower 95% limits of gibbon diets (a measuregibbons based both dietary composition and the Open ly, the mean and upper and 1 lower 95% limitsrespectively, overlap with gibbonsand lower 1000limits of expected overlap with gibbons based on 1000 randomly drawn diets. Open of expected the mean and upper based on 95% randomly drawn diets. Open 1 indicate, erved dietary overlap with gibbons. The top row of graphs shows data for vertebrate 1 1 1 species (abbreviations follow Figure 2), 1 1 1 erved dietary overlap with gibbons. circles indicate observed dietary overlap with gibbons. The top row of graphs shows data for vertebrate species (abbreviations follow Figure 2), The top row of graphs shows data for vertebrate species (abbreviations follow Figure 2), ws data for vertebrate families (abbreviations follow Figure 3). ws data for vertebrate families (abbreviations follow Figure 3).for vertebrate families 0.8 0.8 0.8 the bottom row shows data (abbreviations follow Figure 3). ommunity-wide feeding competition 13 en gibbons and feeding competition lists percent of ommunity-wide other important vertebrate frugivores in peatspecies is not generally considered by most primatologists 13 • competition withet al.: Community-wide feeding forests. The y-axisand other Marshall non-primate and non-peat competition 13 Figure 5: Overall diet overlap between gibbons e incorporating both dietary composition and the frequency of items in the diet). Black boxes and lines important vertebrate frugivores in peat and non-peat forests. The y- Non-primate frugivores are important competitors of gibbons 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Peat 0.4 0.2 0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Dietary overlap Peat 0.4 0.2 0 Non- 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 00 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 PR NonNonPeat overlap Peat Peat Peat Peat Peat Peat Peat Peat NonNonPeat NonPeat Dietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Peat Peat Peat NonNonPeat NonPeat Dietary overlap overlap Peat Dietary NonPeat NonNonPeat overlap Peat Peat Peat Peat Peat NonPeat Dietary overlap 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 00 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 PP 1 0.8 0.6 BR 1 Dietary overlap MF MF 1 1 PR PR CP Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap PP MFPP Peat Dietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap NonPeat 1 11 1 11 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Peat NonDietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 00 1 11 Dietary overlap Peat 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 Dietary 0.6 0.60.6 0.40.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 00 0.6 0.60.6 0.4 0.40.4 Peat Peat Dietary 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.80.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.80.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 Dietary overlap Peat 0.4 0.2 0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Peat Peat 1 Non-primate frugivores are PP BR CP MF PR importantsquirrel competitors of gibbons 11 11 Prevost’s Peat Peat NonNonPeat Peat Non- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 00 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 00 Peat NonDietary overlap Peat Dietary overlap Dietary overlap 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 1 11 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 00 0.6 0.6 1 11 0.6 0.6 Rhinoceros hornbill BR 0.8 0.8 PR BR 1 11 0.8 0.80.8 0.6 0.60.6 0.4 0.40.4 0.2 0.20.2 0 00 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 Peat NonPeat Peat Peat Non- Non- Peat 0.2 0 PP 1 0.2 0 BR 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 Peat Peat Peat NonNon- Non- Non- Non- Peat Peat NonPeat Non- Peat 0.20.2 Thursday, February 18, 2010 0.2 I CERCO NonNonPeat Peat 0 00 SCIUR BUCER Peat Peat Peat PONGI MEGAL 0.2 0.20.2 0 00 CERCO 0.2 42 0 BUCER Peat 0.2 0 MEGAL NonNonPeat NonPeat Peat Peat Peat Peat NonPeat NonNonPeat Peat Peat Peat Peat NonNonPeat NonPeat Peat NonPeat PONGI PONGI SCIUR CERCO CERCO PONGI BUCER BUCER CERCO MEGAL MEGAL BUCER MEGAL All squirrels All hornbills All barbets NonPeat Peat Peat Peat Peat Non- Non- ll et al.: Community-wide feeding competition 14 Marshall et al.: Community-wide feeding competition 14 ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes gure 6: Diet overlap between gibbons and other important vertebrate frugivores during low fruit periods (LFP) and high fruit Figure 6: Diet overlap between gibbons and other important vertebrate frugivores during low fruit periods (LFP) and high fruit riods (HFP) in peat forests. Explanation and abbreviations as in periods5. Figure (HFP) in peat forests. Explanation and abbreviations as in Figure 5. Little relationship between food availability and dietary overlap availability and dietary overlap with non-primate competitors... but little relationship between food with non-primate competitors... 1 page 7 of 8 Marshall et al.:1Community-wide feeding competition 1 1 1 Dietary overlap HFP Dietary overlap HFP Dietary overlap 1 1 1 9 Dietary overlap 1 0.8 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap HFP LFP HFP LFP HFP LFP LFP HFP HFP and masts in non-peat forests. Explanation and abbreviations as in Figures 5 and 6. CP MF PR PP HFP MF BR PR PP HFP LFP LFP LFP LFP LFP BR MAST MAST MAST HFP HFP HFP HFP HFP R Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap MAST LFP HFP 0.2 0 MAST LFP HFP 0.2 0 LFP Dietary 1 1 1 specialization of vertebrate frugivores by species. x-axis hornbill the number1of 1 1 Rhinoceros1 represents Figure 2: Dietary Prevost’s squirrel independent feeding observations, the y-axis represents the percent dietary identity (a measure that 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 1 1 integrates diet 1 composition and frequency of specific items in the diet).0.8 solid line shows the 0.8 The expected dietary identity between two 0.6 randomly selected diets of a given sample size, the dashed line 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.60.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 gives the ! = 0.05 significance limits based on 1000 iterations (see Methods). The further a species is 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 below the line, the less their diet resembles a randomly sampled diet of the same sample size. 0.4 0.6 Therefore species can considered to be more specialized than those close to the dryland forest further from the line0.2 be0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.20.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 line. Abbreviations indicate: Bushy-crested Hornbill (Anorhinus galeritus, AG), Binturong (Arctictis 0.2 0.2 0.2(Sus barbatus, SB), Prevost's binturong, AB),0 Bearded 0 Pig 0.2 0.2Black Hornbill (Anthracoceros malayanus, AM),0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 Squirrel (Callosciurus prevostii, CP), Dog-faced Bat (Pteropus spp., PS), Fairy Bluebird (Irena puella, IP), 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis, MF), Green Broadbill (Calyptomena viridis, CV), Bornean SCIUR PONGI CERCO BUCER PONGI CERCO BUCER MEGAL White-bearded Gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis, HA), Helmeted Hornbill (Buceros vigil, BV), Red Leaf Monkey (Presbytis CP rubicunda rubida, PR), Little Barbet (Megalaima australis, MA), Gold-whiskered MF PR PP MF PR PP BR Barbet (Megalaima chrysopogon, MC), Gaudy Barbet (Megalaima mystacophanes, MM), Red-crowned 1Thursday, February 18, 2010 1 1 Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii, PP), Long- 1 1 1 1 1 45 Barbet (Megalaima rafflesii, MR), Western tailed Parakeet (Psittacula RA), 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Because relatively un-selective? longicauda, PL), Giant Squirrel (Ratufa affinis, 0.8 Rhinoceros Hornbill 0.8 0.8 0.8 (Buceros rhinoceros, BR), Little Green Pigeon (Treron capellei, TC), Tufted Ground Squirrel 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 (Rheithrosciurus macrotis, TG), Wreathed Hornbill (Aceros undulatus, AU), and Wrinkled Hornbill 0.6 (Aceros corrugatus, AC). 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 1 Dietary overlap LFP Dietary overlap LFP Dietary overlap LFP Dietary overlap LFP Dietary overlap LFP LFP Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap HFP Dietary overlap HFP Dietary overlap MAST HFP HFP Dietary overlap Dietary overlap Dietary overlap 0.8 Dietary overlap Dietary overlap 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 LFP LFP HFP LFP MAST HFP LFP MAST LFP HFP LFP MAST LFP HFP HFP LFP LFP HFP MAST HFP MAST HFP HFP LFP LFP LFP LFP MEGAL overlap ...because gibbons relatively unselective? 0.2 LFP MAST HFP BR 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 MAST LFP HFP 0.2 0 0.2 MAST LFP HFP 0.2 0 MAST LFP LFP HFP MAST MAST LFP 0 0 0 PONGI CERCOSCIUR BUCER PONGI MEGAL CERCO MAST HFP HFP HFP BUCER MEGAL % dietary identity CP HA PR BR PP # Independent feeding observations Marshall, Cannon & Leighton 2009 Thursday, February 18, 2010 46 LFP to their specialized than those of all vertebrates0.6or f f r u g i v o r y . T h e a n a l y s i s o f 0.6 i e t a r y d 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 which we have more than 100 feeding specialization by family shows a similar Marshall et al.: Community-wide feeding competition 0.4 15 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 o b s forest 0.4 ie peate r v a t al.: Community-wide feeding competition t i o n s ( t w o h o r n b i l l s p e c15s , p i g s , pattern: the hylobatids are less specialized giant squirrels, mac0.2 ues, leaf mo0.2 eys, 0.2 d aq nk an t h a n h o r n b i l l s ( B u c e r o t i d a e ) , 0.2o n k e y s m 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 orangutans; Fig. 2). Of the other species in (Cercopithecidae), and barbets 0 0 0 0 our sample, t0 fteFigureo7: nd squirr0 ls, dogu d 0 r u Diet overlap e g (Meg other idae),0a vertebrate as spec a0ize low fruit periods (LFP), high fruit l between gibbons andalaimimportantnd about frugivores iduringd as e 7: Diet overlap between gibbons and ced bats, and long-tailed parduring s appear Explanation and abbreviationsi asa eFigures 5 g . 6. 3 ) . (HFP) and masts in non-peat forests. s (LFP), r e s fa other important vertebrate frugivores akeet low fruit periods q u i rhighl fruit periodsi u r d in ; (Sc F i and 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 frugivorous 0.8 rtion of gibbon diets are0.8 ss po le b e 0.8 r t i c0.8 a r l y pa ul s p e c i a l i z e d 0.8 in Dietary overlap 1 0 ANT 154B Lecture #13 course notes page 8 of 8 Take home messages 1. Diets of competitors tend to diverge during periods of resource scarcity (i.e., they use distinct fallback foods), but this patters in not universal. 2. Detection the effects of inter-specific competition, especially on the evolutionary scale, is difficult to do. 3. Both other primate species and non-primate vertebrates can be ecologically important competitors with primates. Question to ponder Due to an ever-increasing number of orangutan orphans being confiscated from the pet trade, there is substantial interest in surveying remaining Bornean forest fragments as potential release sites for excaptive orangutans. One potential release site is a fairly large fragment of peat swamp forest in central Kalimantan that appears to contain an unusually high density of hornbills. As a consulting scientist, you have been asked to comment on potential conservation issues surrounding inter-specific feeding competition between orangutans and hornbills in this forest fragment. You dig around through the literature and find a single published study that quantifies dietary overlap between orangutans and hornbills. The study reports a 75% dietary overlap between the two species. The data in this study were well collected and effective sampling protocols were followed. Unfortunately, however, data were only collected for three months, during a period of relative fruit abundance. Furthermore, the published study was conducted in dryland forests in Sumatra. Two questions: a) Conservation managers have asked your expert opinion about whether competition with hornbills would adversely affect populations of released orangutans in the proposed peat swamp release site. What will you tell them? Do you have sufficient information to make an informed judgement on this question? Why or why not? b) An eager Indonesian master’s student arrives at your office the same week, and wishes to conduct a field study that could provide additional information upon which you might base such a decision in the future. What types of questions would you suggest that she investigates? Briefly consider study duration, study location, and the type of data to be collected. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2011 for the course ANT 154bn taught by Professor Debello during the Winter '10 term at UC Davis.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online