↓ Skip to main content

Samango Monkeys (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) Manage Risk in a Highly Seasonal, Human-Modified Landscape in Amathole Mountains, South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Primatology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Samango Monkeys (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) Manage Risk in a Highly Seasonal, Human-Modified Landscape in Amathole Mountains, South Africa
Published in
International Journal of Primatology, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10764-016-9913-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarzyna Nowak, Kirsten Wimberger, Shane A. Richards, Russell A. Hill, Aliza le Roux

Abstract

Wild species use habitats that vary in risk across space and time. This risk can derive from natural predators and also from direct and indirect human pressures. A starving forager will often take risks that a less hungry forager would not. At a highly seasonal and human-modified site, we predicted that arboreal samango monkeys (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) would show highly flexible, responsive, risk-sensitive foraging. We first determined how monkeys use horizontal and vertical space across seasons to evaluate if high-risk decisions (use of gardens and ground) changed with season, a proxy for starvation risk. Then, during a subsequent winter, we offered equal feeding opportunities (in the form of high-value, raw peanuts) in both gardens and forest to see if this short-term change in food availability and starvation risk affected monkeys' foraging decisions. We found that during the food-scarce winter, monkeys foraged outside indigenous forest and in gardens, where they fed on exotic species, especially fallen acorns (Quercus spp.), despite potential threats from humans. Nevertheless, and as predicted, when given the choice of foraging on high-value foods in gardens vs. forest during our artificial foraging experiment, monkeys showed a preference for a safer forest habitat. Our experiment also indicated monkeys' sensitivity to risk in the lower vertical strata of both habitats, despite their previous extensive use of the ground. Our findings support one of the central tenets of optimal foraging theory: that risk of starvation and sensitivity to the variation in food availability can be as important drivers of behavior as risk of predation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 27%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 35%
Environmental Science 11 14%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,999,179
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Primatology
#946
of 1,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,057
of 343,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Primatology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.