search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
666


SILVIA PINEDA-MUNOZ ET AL.


requires storing energy by consuming highly energetic food resources and increasing body fat (Humphries et al. 2003). In early spring, when more energetic and protein-rich foods are less abundant, U. arctos feeds on vegeta- tion. However, it switches to amore nutritious diet in late summer. This mixed diet would be beneficial for supporting a seasonal higher demand of nutrients before periods of hiberna- tion (Beeman and Pelton 1980;McLellan 2011). Thus, U. arctos and other generalist hibernating ursids feed on a diverse, unspecialized diet despite their high body mass. A few of the generalist species in the data


the largest ones foraged on an increasingly higher amount of foliage, a pattern also observed in previous studies (Kay 1984). Frugivore species in our data set are


set show a less diverse diet than some classified as specialists, which could be explained as a mathematical artifact arising in unusual circumstances. For example, an animal feeding on 60% vegetation, 10% insects, 10% fruit, 10% fungi, and 10% seeds would be classified as an herbivore, but its diet will be more diverse (inverse Simpson index = 1.23) than that of an animal eating 45% vegetation, 45% fruit, and 10% fungi (inverse Simpson index = 0.95).


Frugivory and Body Mass


Mostdietary specializations have an optimum body-mass range, and few dietary specializa- tions occur in the medium-size range; the only common ones are herbivory, frugivory, and carnivory. Most frugivorous mammal species in our data set have a bodymass between 500g and 30kg. Previous studies found similar patterns, suggesting a peak in frugivory in the medium-size range for Neotropical primates (Kay 1984; Robinson and Redford 1986; Hawes and Peres 2014). A diet with a very high proportion of fruit has been proposed to constrain body size due to mechanical, locomo- tional, ecological, and metabolic factors (Milton and May 1976; Robinson and Redford 1986; Hawes and Peres 2014). Hawes and Peres (2014) performed an


exhaustive study on the frugivory of Neotropi- cal primates with special attention paid to the relationship with body mass. They observed higher rates of frugivory in medium-sized primate species (2–3kg). The proportion of fruit in the diet of smaller species was much lower, with a higher intake of seeds and insects, while


distributed around tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Thus, species with a higher percentage of fruit in their diet have a more restricted geographical distribution. They can also be found in forested patches in the surrounding areas, where they have to complement their diets with other food resources such as vegetation or insects, as shown in our resource utilization data set (see Supplementary Table 1). We recorded frugivore species in tropical


environments in South America and Africa but not in Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific (Fig. 4). This fact could be related to the nature of our dietary data. Pineda-Munoz and Alroy (2014) limited their study to the stomach content literature in order to standardize data and avoid sampling bias. Unfortunately, very little stomach content research has been performed in the latter two regions. However, there are some examples of medium-sized tropical frugivores in these regions, such as the Indian giant squirrel Ratufa indica, with an average adult size of 1.5–2kg; the liontail macaque Macaca silenus, with an average size of 3–10kg (Ganesh and Davidar 1999); and the binturong Arctictis binturong,withanaverage size of 9–20kg (Colon and Campos-Arceiz 2013). Similarly, the more restricted geographical


distribution of South American frugivore species as compared with African ones could be related to sampling biases and a higher level of endemism in the South American region. Stomach content studies have been mainly carried out near the Amazon River. However, South America seems to have a high diversity of frugivore species such as primates, which ultimately results in allopatric, closely related species having more restricted geo- graphic distributions (Wilson et al. 1988). Pure frugivores such as the black uacari (Cacajao melanocephalus) or the Colombian woolly mon- key (Lagothrix lugens) can be found in areas surrounding those that provided most of the South American stomach content data. We hypothesize that a wholly frugivorous diet is only suitable in tropical rain forests or


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192