| Literature DB >> 24526001 |
Marc Ancrenaz1, Rahel Sollmann2, Erik Meijaard3, Andrew J Hearn4, Joanna Ross4, Hiromitsu Samejima5, Brent Loken6, Susan M Cheyne7, Danica J Stark8, Penny C Gardner8, Benoit Goossens9, Azlan Mohamed10, Torsten Bohm11, Ikki Matsuda12, Miyabi Nakabayasi13, Shan Khee Lee14, Henry Bernard15, Jedediah Brodie16, Serge Wich17, Gabriella Fredriksson18, Goro Hanya12, Mark E Harrison19, Tomoko Kanamori12, Petra Kretzschmar11, David W Macdonald4, Peter Riger20, Stephanie Spehar21, Laurentius N Ambu22, Andreas Wilting11.
Abstract
The orangutan is the world's largest arboreal mammal, and images of the red ape moving through the tropical forest canopy symbolise its typical arboreal behaviour. Records of terrestrial behaviour are scarce and often associated with habitat disturbance. We conducted a large-scale species-level analysis of ground-based camera-trapping data to evaluate the extent to which Bornean orangutans Pongo pygmaeus come down from the trees to travel terrestrially, and whether they are indeed forced to the ground primarily by anthropogenic forest disturbances. Although the degree of forest disturbance and canopy gap size influenced terrestriality, orangutans were recorded on the ground as frequently in heavily degraded habitats as in primary forests. Furthermore, all age-sex classes were recorded on the ground (flanged males more often). This suggests that terrestrial locomotion is part of the Bornean orangutan's natural behavioural repertoire to a much greater extent than previously thought, and is only modified by habitat disturbance. The capacity of orangutans to come down from the trees may increase their ability to cope with at least smaller-scale forest fragmentation, and to cross moderately open spaces in mosaic landscapes, although the extent of this versatility remains to be investigated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24526001 PMCID: PMC3923384 DOI: 10.1038/srep04024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary statistics for orangutan camera trapping data from Borneo used in the present analysis. For definition of forest classes, see Methods
| No | Study site | Status | State | No of stations | No of trap days | No of records | Forest class | Orangutan density [ind/km2] | Density reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bawan Forest | CFR | Central Kalimantan, Indonesia | 65 | 2,064 | 2 | REC-RIL | 2.15 | |
| 2 | Croker Range Park | NP | Sabah, Malaysia | 35 | 3,999 | 0 | PRIM & VOL | 1.0 | |
| 3 | Danum Valley Conservation Area | TPA | Sabah, Malaysia | 198 | 20,223 | 51 | PRIM | 1.0 | |
| 4 | Deramakot Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 144 | 10,532 | 25 | VOL & OLD-RIL | 1.5 | |
| 5 | Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary | WS | Sabah, Malaysia | 128 | 19,602 | 179 | VOL | 1.1–3.9 | |
| 6 | Kuamut Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 38 | 1,949 | 2 | REC-CL | 0.1–1.4 | |
| 7 | Kutai National Park | NP | East Kalimantan Indonesia | 53 | 3,310 | 42 | VOL | 1.0–1.3 | Spehar, pers. com. |
| 8 | Maliau Basin | TPA | Sabah, Malaysia | 27 | 5,232 | 0 | PRIM & OLD-REC | 0.1 | |
| 9 | Malua Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 107 | 9,730 | 40 | REC-CL | 1.3–1.6 | |
| 10 | Sabangau Peat Swamp Forest | NP | Central Kalimantan, Indonesia | 58 | 26,722 | 49 | OLD-RIL | 1.7 | |
| 11 | Segaliud Lokan Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 67 | 3,452 | 19 | OLD-CL & REC-RIL | 1.2 | |
| 12 | Kulamba Wildlife Reserve | WR | Sabah, Malaysia | 4 | 252 | 2 | VOL | 2.3 | |
| 13 | Tabin Wildlife Reserve | WR | Sabah, Malaysia | 283 | 28,462 | 104 | VOL | 1.3 | |
| 14 | Tangkulap Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 100 | 6,057 | 37 | OLD-CL | 0.6 | |
| 15 | Ulu Segama Forest Reserve | CFR | Sabah, Malaysia | 61 | 9,829 | 13 | OLD-CL | 1.1–1.4 | |
| 16 | Wehea Forest | CFR | East Kalimantan, Indonesia | 41 | 7,737 | 76 | OLD-RIL | 1.1 | Loken, pers. com. |
| TOTAL | 1,409 | 159,152 | 641 |
1CFR = Commercial Forest Reserve; NP = National Park; TPA = Totally Protected Area; WS = Wildlife Sanctuary; WR = Wildlife Reserve.
2Density varied between areas.
AIC summaries for zero-inflated Poisson regression of photo-counts of orangutans; models for the probability of coming to the ground as a function of forest class (for), camera trap placement (cam) and orangutan density (dens), or no covariates (0), conditional on best photographic frequency model containing all covariates. For definition of forest classes and camera trap placement, see Methods
| Model | No. parameters | AIC | delta AIC | AIC weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 2550.120 | 0.000 | 0.533 | |
| 18 | 2550.783 | 0.664 | 0.364 | |
| 13 | 2554.802 | 4.683 | 0.055 | |
| 15 | 2555.798 | 5.678 | 0.032 | |
| 17 | 2557.085 | 6.965 | 0.016 | |
| 11 | 2565.759 | 15.640 | 0.000 | |
| 12 | 2567.900 | 17.781 | 0.000 | |
| 0 | 10 | 2573.684 | 23.565 | 0.000 |
Model-averaged parameter estimates from zero-inflated Poisson regression of photographic frequencies of orangutans against forest class (PRIM, VOL, RIL-OLD, CL-OLD, RIL-REC, CL-REC, see Methods for abbreviations), camera trap placement (closed canopy, small gap, large gap) and orangutan density. Primary forest and closed canopy were reference categories in the regression
| Parameter | Coefficients | Estimate | SE | Lower CI | Upper CI | z value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (log scale) | Intercept | −5.017 | 0.227 | −5.462 | −4.572 | 22.098 | <0.001 |
| 0.053 | 0.242 | −0.423 | 0.528 | 0.217 | 0.828 | ||
| −1.064 | 0.300 | −1.653 | −0.475 | 3.542 | <0.001 | ||
| −0.229 | 0.302 | −0.821 | 0.363 | 0.758 | 0.448 | ||
| −0.578 | 1.165 | −2.862 | 1.706 | 0.496 | 0.620 | ||
| −0.313 | 0.332 | −0.963 | 0.337 | 0.943 | 0.346 | ||
| 0.220 | 0.152 | −0.079 | 0.518 | 1.443 | 0.149 | ||
| 0.412 | 0.179 | 0.061 | 0.762 | 2.300 | 0.021 | ||
| 0.372 | 0.106 | 0.166 | 0.579 | 3.529 | <0.001 | ||
| Probability (logit scale) | Intercept | 1.694 | 0.337 | 1.033 | 2.355 | 5.022 | <0.001 |
| −0.423 | 0.330 | −1.070 | 0.224 | 1.283 | 0.200 | ||
| −1.643 | 0.456 | −2.537 | −0.749 | 3.603 | <0.001 | ||
| −0.871 | 0.380 | −1.615 | −0.127 | 2.294 | 0.022 | ||
| 1.070 | 1.420 | −1.714 | 3.854 | 0.754 | 0.451 | ||
| −0.353 | 0.456 | −1.247 | 0.542 | 0.773 | 0.439 | ||
| −0.461 | 0.300 | −1.050 | 0.127 | 1.538 | 0.124 | ||
| −0.025 | 0.398 | −0.805 | 0.756 | 0.062 | 0.951 | ||
| −0.587 | 0.217 | −1.013 | −0.162 | 2.706 | 0.007 |
Figure 1(A) Photographic frequency (including different camera-trap placement categories) and (B) probability of orangutans coming to the ground for six different forest classes ordered from primary to recently heavily logged forest (PRIM = primary forest; VOL = very old conventionally logged forest >20 years ago; RIL-OLD = reduced impact logging 2–20 years ago; CL-old = conventional logging 2–20 years ago; RIL-REC = reduced impact logging within the last 2 years; RIL-REC = conventional logging in the last 2 years). (C) Relationship of photographic frequency (black) and probability of orangutans coming to the ground (red) with orangutan density, plotted for primary forest, but patterns for other forest classes are equivalent.