Introducing A New Guest Blogger, Kristin Abt
Kristin Abit is a new guest blogger here at Primatology.net. She is currently a Master’s student, studying Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology at the University of Maryland. Her undergraduate degree was in Biology and Psychology from Loyola University, also in Maryland.
Kristin has over 5 years of experience in the zoo field as an animal keeper. She primarily cared for lemurs and Old World monkeys. She also participated in field research experiences in Costa Rica and Malaysian Borneo. Her research interests focus on improving animal wellbeing through applied research in the captive setting, especially relating to environmental enrichment and animal management. In a border scope, she also tells me she is interested in conservation education and conservation psychology.
I left primate care several years ago, so I’m happy to have someone like Kristin, with so much primate care under her belt, help us out. I’m looking forward to reading her posts!
A Review of wildlife crop raiding in Indonesia: patterns, local perceptions, and mitigation techniques.
by Allison Hanes
Indonesia serves as a good example of a country where the landscape is changing and in turn affecting wildlife and people. Forests are being cut down at alarming rates for agricultural demands such as the palm oil industry. Palm plantations cover 3,107,986 hectares of Indonesia and the government plans to expand plantations by an extra four million hectares in Sumatra alone.
The monoculture of palm decreases wildlife habitat and food resources pushing wildlife closer to human settlements. Continuous forest conversion for the purpose of plantation development, wood extraction, and the opening of community gardens has virtually eliminated all lowland habitats. This forces animals like the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) endangered Sumatran elephant Elephas maximus sumatranus to forested slopes of mountain ranges where they more often will enter gardens and raid crops.
Many studies state that wildlife habitat destruction is the greatest cause for the occurrence of crop raiding. At the same time like many parts of the world population growth is soaring which also increases wildlife and human niches to overlap. Indonesia is a region of high human population density having the sixth largest human population in the world. Lee & Priston (2005) state that there has been a spread of agriculture and human activity into areas that used to only be sustained by nonhuman primates and that most of the world’s subsistence farmers live in proximity to monkeys and apes. Wildlife continually being forced to move will increase the scale and extent of encounters between humans and wildlife as well as crop raiding.
Journal articles were chosen specifically on crop raiding of all species in Indonesia but some references included general articles about Indonesia and other case examples in the world such as Africa. Most crop raiding studies have been done in Africa. Indonesia was an interesting location because of its high human population density, rapidly declining forests, and large variety of species that come into contact with crops.
Hockings (2009) describes crop raiding as wildlife venturing into cultivated areas to consume foods that humans see as belonging to them. It can be an adaptation by wildlife to a loss of both natural habitat and wild foods and also an increase in access to new energy-rich food resources. A study in four villages in North Sumatra showed that crop raiding by wildlife was reported by 94.9% of the interviewees as the single most important determinant of crop yields. Thirteen vertebrates were reported causing damage to cultivars. The most common were squirrels, porcupines, pigs, deer, elephants, and primates. The ones perceived to be the most destructive were the primates. Almost all families of nonhuman primates are shown by Lee & Priston (2005) to be crop raiders, cercopithecoids such as macaques being the largest culprit. This is thought to be because they are intelligent opportunistic frugivores. In addition, they often live near forest-edges.
Crop damage caused by raiding wildlife is a prevalent form of human-wildlife conflict along protected area boundaries and near logged areas on forest borders. Primates tend to dominate as the major pests around reserves in Asia, responsible for over 70% of damage events. Macaques on the Mentawai Islands comprise up to 35% of garden yield losses. Macaques and other primates are clever, opportunistic, adaptable, and often manipulative. Crop raiding is often an easy option for them. In Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra wild elephants damaged 450,000 square meters of corn, rice, cassava, beans and other annual crops as well about 900 coconut, banana, and other perennial trees over an 18 month survey study of 13 villages. Within a 12-year period elephants killed or injured 24 people near the park.
Specific culprits mentioned in the articles that raided Indonesian crops included wild boars (Sus scrofa), Thomas’ leaf monkeys (Presbytis thomasi), long tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), orangutans (Pongo abelii), tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana), Sumatran elephants (Elephas maximus sumatranus), Pagai Island macaques (Macaca pagensis), and sun bears (Helarctos malayanus). Different species specialize in different crops and even plant parts of crops or development stages. Not just primates are known to cause severe damage. Primates may be agile but elephants cause a great deal of damage due to their large size and nocturnal/crepuscular activity. Raiding patterns can relate to population density, behavior of the species, wild food availability, rainfall, season, and proximity of farms to forests. All these factors affect raiding frequency and intensity, which play a large role in the livelihoods of people and how they perceive wildlife.
Crop raiding can have large impacts on people such as human lives lost in human-elephant conflicts. As seen from statistics above crop raiding can have large impacts on the livelihoods of farmers. They experience devastating economic losses when crops are their only source of income. Crop raiding impacts time spent away from tending crops in order to carry out mitigation techniques like guarding. Schooling of children is disrupted in order to help guard family crops. There is also risk of injuries and disease transmission from wildlife.
The perceptions of local people toward wildlife crop raiding species are extremely important for mitigating crop raiding and for wildlife conservation. Areas with less human wildlife conflict and crop raiding as well as better management tended to perceive wildlife more positively and were more tolerant. People said that they enjoyed seeing wildlife and having them around for their children especially if they were not damaging crops. Riley & Priston (2010) observed farmers tolerating crop raiding because they saw macaques as helping them harvest crops like cashew nuts. A Butonese farmer stated ,“ they eat only the fruit, letting the nut drop to the ground for us to collect.” In the Mentawai Islands in Sumatra nonhuman primates are seen as “cousins” and magical sources of spirit and life force, and were believed to play integral roles in the governing system of Mentawai life cycle. In Bali monkeys are treated with great tolerance because the Balinese culture emphasizes harmony between nature and mankind. Tokean macaques have been regarded as kin and guardians although still feared. Seeing the animals when they were not actively crop raiding resulted in more positive perceptions of the animals.
However, local people often reported being threatened both in terms of crop loss and personal safety. People felt more at risk with larger species such as elephants and primates despite whether raidings were rare for that species. For example, studies showed that people feared orangutans much more than smaller species and perceived them to cause the most damage even when it was not the case. Articles continually showed fear of wildlife and often local legends of primates kidnapping women or children like that of the Sumatran orangutan which resulted in “an offspring which is restricted to the treetops and in the night you can still hear the cries of the this human-half-orangutan.” If farmers and families felt they were in no physical threat they were more tolerant.
Mitigation techniques included fences, electric fences, dogs, chemical deterrents, taste aversion conditioning, playback alarms, guarding/chasing, noise/bells/shouting, contraception, painting individuals, stones/slingshots/spears, shooting/hunting, trapping/culling, translocation, change cropping patterns, and buffer zones. All of which can be used in different contexts with advantages and disadvantages. Shouting is often the most common.
Linkie et al. (2006) states that guarding is completely ineffective for a variety of species whereas Hedges & Gunaryadi (2010) concluded community-based guarding using conventional tools was more effective and less costly than sirens and chilli-grease fences in Way Kambas National Park. However, the chillies could serve as an alternate elephant-resistant cash crop. Lee & and Priston (2005) state traditional methods of mitigation are often ineffective because of dexterity and intelligence of primates. Techniques largely depend on the crop raider and the region. Many of the techniques are very costly and time consuming to farmers. More research needs to be invested in monitoring techniques that are utilized. Incorporating local input and views will have longstanding effective crop-raiding solutions. Cooperation of local people is necessary to control pests and conserve wildlife. Lee & Priston (2005) state that information about the attitudes and perceptions of wildlife as pests is a prerequisite to designing optimal and effective management schemes and introducing suitable preventative measures.
Education programs and community meetings that initiate management schemes are necessary. Ecotourism can also be a used to supplement income to farmers and lessen tension between people and wildlife. The value of forests to people and wildlife must be addressed. Campaigns and policies lessening the rates of deforestation will decrease habitat overlap and crop raiding issues between people and wildlife.
As forests are cleared for demands in agricultural expansion and population growth continues to rise, human and wildlife habitats in Indonesia will continue overlapping. Human wildlife interactions will increase as will the incidence of crop raiding. Mitigation techniques have proved very difficult due to limited resources of famers and intelligence of animals. Each location and species presents a particular scenario with different factors affecting the intensity and occurrence of crop raiding that will require unique methods or a combination of tactics. Therefore, if crop raiding cannot be eradicated, it certainly must be minimized and managed to reduce conflict. People’s perceptions are particularly important because crop raiding can reduce tolerance toward wildlife and affect actions taken by local farmers. Local people play the key role in generating sustainable solutions and for conserving wildlife.
Introducing A New Guest Blogger, Allison Hanes
It is with great pleasure to introduce a new member to our Primatology.net blogging family, my good friend Allison Hanes. We both attended UCSC for our undergraduate degrees and became friends while taking some prerequisite courses. Allison got her Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Studies/Biology. She’s enrolled as an MSc student in the Primate Conservation program at Oxford Brookes University.
She has worked over five years as a veterinary technician, has had research experience with the Shusterman Pinniped Group at UCSC Long Marine Laboratory, and has an extensive wildlife-related volunteering record. Her interests include veterinary medicine, ecotourism, community-based conservation, sustainable development, and conservation medicine.
She’ll be publishing a post here in the near future, so make sure to keep an eye out. Again, she’s been my friend for over 10 years and I’m very enthusiastic about having Allison on board. I believe she’ll offer a great mix of topics and look forward to reading her posts.
Another addition to the Fork-marked lemur species?
By Raymond Ho
Just in time to celebrate Monkey Day tomorrow, a new species of lemur is on the verge of being formally acknowledge in science. Primatologist Dr. Russ Mittermeien first spotted this species back in 1995 during one of his expedition to Daraina, Madagascar but said that he did not have any time to follow up with his discovery until now.
This “new” species belongs to the genus Phaner or the fork-marked lemur (the species is yet to be named since they are not formally acknowledge by science). This species, like all fork-marked lemurs, feeds on exudates and flower nectar. They are nocturnal and are arboreal quadrupeds. Photo from Physorg.com by Russ Mittermeien.
There are currently four species of fork-marked lemurs, making this new species the fifth if scientifically acknowledge. Fork-marked lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, like all lemur species. They get their name from the dark stripe that runs from their back and forks on their head to their eyes. Their face and stripe actually reminds me of slow lorises.
The most likely difference between this new species (besides their color) and the other four fork-marked lemurs is definitely in the genetics. This new species is likely endangered or critically endangered due to isolated or restricted range.
On a personal note, I am truly digging the language used by the media. Instead of saying “new species discovered”, they actually wrote “new species to science”. I prefer the latter description as it is non-ethnocentric since most “newly-discovered” species are already known to the natives in the area.
For more about this news, read New lemur found in Madagascar on BBC and New lemur: big feet, long tongue and the size of squirrel on Physorg.com
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
20 Best Blogs for Primatology Students
Great news today here at Primatology.net. We made #1 in 20 Best Blogs for Primatology Students, a list compiled by Toponlinecolleges (yea, the name is quite spammy, I know). Although I’ve never heard of this site, they did a great job compiling the list. If anything, it’s a good way to get a list of Primatology blogs.
If you are interested in Primatology or if you are a Primatology/Anthropology student, check out the link and visit the other 19 blogs!
New snub-nosed monkey from Northern Myanmar: Rhinopithecus strykeri
By Raymond Ho
A team of primatologists supposed discovered a new species of snub-nosed monkey in Northern Myanmar during their Hoolock Gibbon Status Review early this year. The new species was formally named Rhinopithecus strykeri, after the President and Founder of the Arcus Foundation Jon Stryker. The locals do have a name for these snub-nosed monkeys. They call them “mey nwoah” or “monkey with an upturned face”.
This primate reported has an upturned nose which, according to the locals, made them sneeze when it rains. Locals observed that to avoid getting rain water into their nose, R. strykeri would sit with their heads tucked in between their legs. Their pelage is entirely black except for a white tuft on their ears, chin beard and the perineal end. It has a relatively long tail, about 140% of its body. R. strykeri is the first species of the Rhinopithecus genus to be found in Myanmar. The other four species (R. roxellana, R. bieti, R. brelichi and R. avunculus) are found in China and Vietnam. R. strykeri‘s range is limited only to the Maw River area. There are estimated about 260 to 330 individuals of R. strykeri left in the wild, making them Critically Endangered according to IUCN.
Read more at New Snub-Nosed Monkey Discovered in Northern Myanmar.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
Are slow lorises really venomous?
By Raymond Ho
I must say, the idea of venomous primates never crossed my mind. While venomous species do exist in mammals, it is much more common in insects, reptiles and fishes. In primates, slow lorises (genus Nycticebus) are though to be venomous in Thai folklore (Wilde, 1972) but are they really?
Nycticebus
As of 2010, the genus Nycticebus consists of four species: Pygmy slow loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus), Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) and Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis). The Javan slow loris was previously recognized as a subspecies but has since been elevated to species status. These prosimians are found in different parts of Southeast Asia. Nycticebus range, in red. Illustration from Primate Info Net.
Slow lorises are arboreal primates that move quadrupedally between branches. They are nocturnal and omnivorous, feeding on plant matter and insects. Slow lorises sleep during the day, curled up like a ball in hidden parts of trees above ground. Their predators include pythons (Python reticulatus), hawk-eagles (Spizaetus cirrhatus) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Slow lorises have a relatively low metabolism compared to similar-sized mammals (Gron, 2009). Sunda slow loris (Nycticebus coucang). Photo from Primate Info Net.
Although the words “venomous” and “poisonous” are used interchangeably in everyday speech, they are actually fundamentally different. By definition, venom has to be injected into the body, introduced by a bite or a sting. Poison, on the other hand, is ingested or inhaled into the body by the victim. Thus, venomous and poisonous animals are altogether different.
The brachial gland produces exudate with an allergen that is similar to the Fel d 1 cat allergen (Hagey et al., 2006; Krane et al., 2003). This brachial gland exudate shares a high degree of similarity in sequence, as well as unusual disulfide-bridged heterodimeric structure similar with Fel d 1. Fel d 1 is an allergen found mostly in saliva and the sebaceous glands (glands found inside the skin) of domestic cats, Felis catus. Humans with a cat allergy are allergic to five known allergen produced by domestic cats, Fel d 1 being one of them. However, the biological function of Fel d 1 is still currently unknown (Grönlund et al., 2010).
So are slow lorises venomous or poisonous?
To answer this, let’s revisit the definitions of venomous and poisonous. A venomous animal injects toxins into its victim’s body by bite or sting. A poisonous animal, on the other hand, produces toxins that are poisonous once inhaled or ingested. Medical literature shows that human – slow loris injuries come from slow loris bites and not from ingesting their toxins. So are slow lorises venomous? Well, not quite.
Slow lorises have needle-like teeth called dental combs or tooth combs on their lower jaw. Paired with the constant licking of the brachial gland, it is not surprising that one would assume the dental comb plays a part in injecting brachial gland exudate into unsuspecting victims (Hagey et al., 2006). However, this is not the case.
Used for grooming, dental combs might look menacing to some but their function is less sinister than one might conjure up. A bite from a slow loris is painful due to their sharp pointed teeth. Illustration of slow loris teeth from Loris Conservation. The dental comb is on the lower jaw, shape like a spade.
Wilde (1972) reports that the victim of a slow loris bite immediately succumbs to anaphylactic shock (extreme allergic reaction) followed by hematuria. In spite of that, the victim fully recovered. There is no clinical evidence of toxic substances in slow loris saliva to support the notion that they are venomous (Wilde, 1972).
Another incident involves a 34 year-old woman who is 19 weeks pregnant. She was bitten by a pygmy slow loris at the zoo she works in. The patient only complained about an acute pain at the location where she was bitten. She did not go into anaphylactic shock (Kalimullah et al., 2008).
Reports of slow loris bites are rare in literature. However, based on these published reports, it seems that slow loris bites are not venomous (Kalimullah et al., 2008; Wilde, 1972). Due to the high degree of similarity between the brachial gland exudate of slow lorises and the Fel d 1 allergen in domestic cats, the anaphylactic shock expressed by victims is probably just a reaction to the exudate’s allergen.
What is the function of the brachial gland exudate?
Hagey et al. (2007) posit that the brachial gland exudate is used as olfactory signalling to broadcast individual home range and territories. Most nocturnal primates rely on olfaction — slow loris included. Since brachial gland exudates are not an immediate response to stress or pursuit, their function might be to deter predators, warn other slow lorises of danger or even both (Hagey et al., 2006).
I’m looking forward to more studies on these prosimians and the properties of their brachial gland exudates. More research, as well as slow loris bite records, are needed to elucidate the effects of brachial gland exudates on humans.
References:
Gron, KJ. 2009. Primate Factsheets: Slow Loris (Nycticebus) Taxonomy, Morphology & Ecology. Primate Info Net Retrieved October, 19 2010 http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/slow_loris.
Grönlund, H. Saarne, T. Gafvelin, G. van Hage, M. 2010. The Major Cat Allergen, Fel d 1, in Diagnosis and Therapy. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 151(4): 265-274.
Hagey, LR. Fry, BG. Fitch-Snyder, H. 2007. Talking Defensively: A Dual Use for the Brachial Gland Exudate of Slow and Pygmy Lorises. Primate Anti-Predatory Strategies 2: 253-272 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-34810-0_12.
Krane, S. Itagaki, Y. Nakanishi, K. Weldon, PJ. 2003. “Venom” of the slow loris: sequence similarity of prosimian skin gland protein and Fel d 1 cat allergen. Naturwissenschaften 90: 60-62.
Kalimullah, EA. Schmidt, SM. Schmidt, MJ. Lu, JJ. 2008. Beware the Pygmy Slow Loris? Clinical Toxicology 46(7): 602. http://www.eapcct.org/publicfile.php?folder=congress&file=Abstracts_Toronto.pdf.
Wilde, H. 1972. Anaphylactic Shock Following Bite by a ‘Slow Loris’, Nycticebus coucang. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 21(5): 592-594. http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/5/592.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
Ape behavior inside the exhibit and holding area
An insightful paper published by Ross et al. (2010), compares zoo-living ape behavior inside their holding and exhibit areas in Lincoln Park Zoo, an accredited member of Association for Zoos and Aquarium (AZA). Zoo animals usually have at least two areas where they are housed (excluding some aquatic animals): the holding area and the exhibit area. During visiting hours and at night, zoo animals are housed in their exhibit area. In the morning, before the zoo opens, they move into the holding area to receive husbandry care and their morning food ration.
Holding and exhibit areas differ in size, design and functionality. A study by Ross and Lukas on 11 AZA-accredited zoos shows that holding areas are usually about 40 times smaller than exhibit areas (Ross et al., 2010). At the Lincoln Park Zoo, the holding area is about 9.3% of the size of the exhibit area (for both gorillas and chimpanzees). Whereas the exhibit area is designed for the complexity and to mimic the natural environment of its animal inhabitant, the holding area is usually designed for simplicity and functionality to meet husbandry needs.
Seven gorillas (2 males, 5 females; N = 7) and seven chimpanzees (3 males, 4 females; N = 7) were observed in this study. I should point out that the authors of the study is by no means criticizing Lincoln Park Zoo. It is an informal observation of behavioral changes for these animals in different environment. The result of the study shows that:
Gorillas
Inside the holding area – Increased locomotion and affiliative behavior. Also showed increased rates of aggression, self-directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair) and solitary play. Were in close proximity with each other.
Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior and also sexual behavior.
Chimpanzees
Inside the holding area – Increased aggression. Increased rate of scratching and self directed behavior (subject touches, manipulates or examines the body, skin, or hair). Were in close proximity with each other.
Inside the exhibit area - Increased feeding and foraging behavior.
Both gorillas and chimpanzees showed increased aggression accompanied with self directed behavior when inside holding area. Increase in aggression can sometimes be attributed to overcrowding and self directed behavior generally means that an animal is nervous. Being constrained in a smaller space increases the chance of mixed-sex and mixed-dominance encounters thus resulting in agonistic and submissive observations. When inside exhibit areas, both apes exhibited an increase in feeding and foraging behavior. This presumably is due to their feeding and foraging habit in the exhibit area. If I remember correctly, one of the major breakthrough in exhibiting apes (and most animals) is to encourage foraging behavior throughout the day. It is no surprise that these apes exhibit these behaviors.
These apes reacted differently when inside their holding area than in their exhibit area because they are exposed to different sensory. Apart from the difference in size and complexity, these two areas also differ in the degree of human interaction, cross-species presence, environmental factors and time spent between these two areas. An understanding of these differences and motivational factors is important in promoting optimized environments for captive apes. The authors encourage that zoos would consider species-specific functional, physical and social preferences when designing enclosures for apes regardless of frequency of use.
Reference:
Ross, S. Wagner, K. Schapiro, S. Hau, J. 2010. Ape behavior in two alternating environments: comparing exhibit and short-term holding areas. American Journal of Primatology 72: 951–959. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20857
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
New Gibbon Species Discovered
A new gibbon species have been discovered by researchers, led by Christian Roos, from the German Primate Center (Deutschen Primatenzentrums) and was published on Vietnamese Journal of Primatology. The northern buffed-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus annamensis) live in the rainforests of Annamite Mountains, situated around Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The northern buffed-cheeked gibbons were once thought to be the yellow-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus gabriellae) but vocalization and genetic research prove that both are distinct species.
“The discovery of a new species of ape is a minor sensation”, Christian Roos warns. All crested gibbons (genus Nomascus) are either endangered or critically endangered with Hainan black crested gibbons (Nomascus nasutus hainanus) the most critically endangered, totaling to only 20 individuals. The sharp decline of Hylobatids can be contributed to illegal hunting and loss of habitat. “Knowledge of their biology and exact distributions is essential for effectively protecting the animals. Only if we know where which species is found and how many individuals there are can we start with serious conservation actions”, Roos adds.
Gibbons are mostly monogamous, pair-bonding primates that are strongly territorial. These vocal displays or songs, usually a duet between a mated pair and sometimes their offspring, can be heard from as far as 1km away. Gibbon songs are territorial displays, perhaps if a gibbon can hear another gibbon sing then it is encroaching a mated pair territory. Oh, in case you are wondering, gibbons do not have tails (they are apes).
For more about this discovery:
New ape species uncovered in Asia on Mongabay.com
New gibbon species discovered in Indochina on Informationsdienst Wissenschaft
Thinh, VN. Mootnick, AR. Thanh, VN. Nadler, T. Roos, C. A new species of crested gibbon, from the central Annamite mountain range. Vietnamese Journal of Primatology 1(4), 2010, 1-12.
Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.
Gameboy Gorilla
This image puts a whole new perspective to the Nintendo classic game, Donkey Kong. At the San Fransisco Zoo, a boy dropped his Nintendo DS into the gorilla enclosure. The following happened. I’m particularly loving the little one’s expression and body language.
From Spicuzza Photo Today blog by way of Gamesradar and The Escapist
