Feeding Strategies of Brown Howler Monkeys in Response to Variations in Food Availability

Supporting information

Feeding strategies of brown howler monkeys in response to variations in food availability

Ó.M. Chaves1 and J.C. Bicca-Marques

1 Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Faculdade de Biociências, Porto

Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 90619-900, Brazil

1 Table S1 Importance value index (and relative density of trees in inds./ha) of food tree species exploited by brown howler monkeys in each fragment. Data based on plant surveys of trees ≥5 cm diameter at breast height (DBH). Top food species marked with an asterisk.

Family Species Study site S S2 S3 L1 L2 L3 121.8 Euphorbiaceae Sebastiania serrata 1 122.5 (34.4) (33.5) 31.6 (11.7) 39.5 (14.5) 50.2 (22.5) 8.7 Nyctaginaceae Guapira opposita 1 5.3 (1.6)* (2.9)* 21.4 (6.3)* 26.3 (9.3)* 76.2 (17.2)* 27.6 Primulaceae Myrsine umbellata 2 21.3 (7.2) (10.3) 6.4 (2.0) 18.6 (7.2) 28.2 (10.1) 9.9 Salicaceae Casearia sylvestris 1 32.8 (14.7) (3.6) 5.3 (1.7) 13.8 (5.9) 16.7 (8.2) 10.6 Sapindaceae Allophylus edulis 1 8.3 (3.6) (3.8) 12.8 (3.6) 21.1 (7.7)* 7.4 (2.5) 7.5 Anacardiaceae Lithraea brasiliensis 2 11.4 (4.1) (2.4)* 3.7 (1.2) 17.4 (5.7)* 2.0 (0.7)* 6.3 Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum marginatum 1 3.0 (0.9) (2.1) 12.8 (3.2) 10.7 (3.7) 12.7 (5.2) 26.7 Rubiaceae Faramea montevidensis 0 14.8 (8.4) (15.5) 0.5 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) 2.9 (1.3) 1.0 Ebenaceae Diospyros inconstans 5 2.4 (0.6) (0.3) 6.8 (2.1)* 10.0 (3.7)* 8.7 (3.1)* 3.7 Moraceae Sorocea bonplandii 2 0.9 (0.2)* (1.0)* 8.7 (3.5)* 6.6 (2.7) 7.8 (3.9) 5.7 Moraceae Ficus cestrifolia 6 5.2 (1.0)* (1.2)* 2.2 (0.6)* 4.1 (0.8)* 2.5 (0.4)* 3.0 Urticaceae Coussapoa microcarpa 0 4.8 (1.4)* (0.8)* 6.1 (1.6)* 4.1 (1.4)* 5.0 (1.6)* 1.8 Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum argentinum 4 1.9 (0.5) (0.7) 7.0 (2.0) 6.9 (2) 3.7 (1.1)*

2 3.0 Salicaceae Casearia decandra 1 5.5 (1.6) (0.8) 2.5 (0.7) 7.6 (2.8) 2.2 (0.6) Enterolobium 0.5 Fabaceae contortisiliquum 7 3.5 (1.4) (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 3.5 (1.1)* 3.3 (0.8) 3.3 Myrtaceae Campomanesia xanthocarpa 1 0.5 (0.1) (1.2) 1.2 (0.3) 2.9 (1.6) 4.1 (1.2) 1.8 Rutaceae Zanthoxylum rhoifolium 1 2.8 (0.8)* (0.7)* 1.1 (0.2) 3.3 (0.8) 1.5 (0.3)* 1.0 Arecaceae Syagrus romanzoffiana1 2 0.9 (0.3) (0.3) 2.6 (0.7)* 1.5 (0.3)* 1.0 (0.2)* 1.0 Lauraceae Nectandra megapotamica 0 1.6 (0.5) (0.3) 1.2 (0.3) 1.5 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) 10.1 Malvaceae Luehea divaricata 3 6.8 (2.3)* (3.4) 3.4 (0.9)* ─ 10.0 (3.2)* Araliaceae Dendropanax cuneatus 1 3.4 (1.0) ─ 0.6 (0.1) 2.0 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) Meliaceae Trichilia claussenii 1 0.5 (0.1) ─ 57.5 (20.3) 24.9 (11.3) 7.3 (2.6) 1.0 Annonaceae Annona sylvatica 0 ─ (0.3) 6.3 (2.1)* 1.6 (0.4) 2.7 (0.7) 1.0 Sapindaceae Cupania vernalis ─ 0.7 (0.4) (0.3) 29.6 (8.2) 42.9 (13.1) 4.5 (1.6) 10.3 Salicaceae Banara parviflora ─ 3.0 (0.9)* (3.5) 8.6 (2.6) 1.1 (0.3) 3.8 (1.3) 1.0 Fabaceae Mimosa bimucronata 6 2.6 (1.1) (0.3) ─ ─ 1.0 (0.2) 2.2 Fabaceae Inga striata 1 0.5 (0.1) (0.7) ─ ─ 5.9 (1.3) Boraginaceae Cordia americana 0 0.5 (0.1) ─ 6.8 (1.9) 9.2 (2.2) ─ Lauraceae Ocotea pulchella 0 0.9 (0.2) ─ 3.7 (0.9) 5.3 (1.2) ─ 11.6 Myrtaceae Myrcia glabra ─ 10.4 (3.7) (4.2)* ─ 0.5 (0.1) 4.3 (1.4) 1.1 Clusiaceae Garcinia gardneriana ─ ─ (0.4) 7.7 (3.3)* 4.3 (1.0) 3.4 (1.4) 0.5 Malvaceae Trema micrantha 1 2.2 (0.8) (0.1) ─ ─ ─

3 Fabaceae Machaerium stipitatum 5 0.5 (0.1)* ─ ─ ─ 6.1 (2.0)* Myrtaceae Psidium cattleianum 3 0.5 (0.1) ─ ─ ─ 0.5 (0.1) Moraceae Ficus luschnathiana 1 ─ ─* 1.7 (0.4) 2.1 (0.5) ─* 1.5 Rosaceae Prunus myrtifolia ─ 0.5 (0.1) (0.4) ─ 0.5 (0.1) ─ Boraginaceae Cordia ecalyculata ─ 0.5 (0.1) ─ 0.5 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) ─ 3.8 Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum gonocarpum ─ ─* (1.4) 0.5 (0.1) ─ 0.5 (0.1)* 0.5 Lauraceae Ocotea porosa ─ ─ (0.1) 6.1 (1.9) 24.6 (5.2)* ─ Symplocaceae Symplocos uniflora 0 0.9 (0.3) ─ ─ ─ ─ Lauraceae Ocotea puberula 1 ─ ─ ─ ─ 2.7 (0.6) Rutaceae Zanthoxylum fagara 0 ─ ─ ─ 0.5 (0.1) ─ 1.5 Anacardiaceae Schinus terebinthifolius ─ 5.9 (2.0) (0.4) ─ ─ ─ 2.9 Fabaceae Inga vera ─ ─ (1.0) ─ ─ 0.5 (0.1) Cecropiaceae Cecropia peltata 1 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ Malvaceae Ceiba speciosa ─ 0.9 (0.3) ─ ─ ─ ─ Araucariaceae Araucaria angustifolia ─ 0.6 (0.2) ─ ─ ─ ─ Myrtaceae Myrcianthes pungens ─ ─ ─ 14.5 (5.6) ─ ─ Fabaceae Lonchocarpus nitidus ─ ─ ─ 5.7 (3.5) ─ ─ Food sp. richness 3 40 37 35 34 37 TFS1 richness 1 8 8 9 9 12 Σ of IVI for TFS 7 29.3 42 65.2 112.6 121.9 Σ TFS densiy4 2 8.3 13.2 21.1 35.2 31.3 1 Top food species (TFS) are those that together contributed ≥80% of total feeding records to the diet of brown howlers during the study. ─ Species not recorded in the area sampled at the study site.

4 Table S2 Age-sex composition of the study groups in December 2013.

Age-sex composition* Fragment AM AF SM SF JM JF I Group size S1 1 2 1 - 2 - - 6 S2 1 3 1 - 3 1 1 10 S3 1 3 1 - 3 - 1 9 L1 2 3 1 - 2 -

5 2 10 L2 2 3 - - 3 - 1 9 L3 2 3 - 1 2 1 - 9 Total 9 17 4 1 15 2 5 53 *A=adult, S=subadult, J=juvenile, I=infant, M=male, F=female

Table S3 Sampling effort on each group during the study period (June 2011-June 2014) and percentage of behavioral records devoted to feeding.

Sampling effort by group Feeding Day Scan Scan

Study site Months s Complete days Hours s Records Hours s Records % records

6 2,23

Small 60 193 132 1,468 5,873 35,514 560 8 8,097 23 S1 21 67 45 492 1,968 9,868 180 719 2,117 21 S2 19 61 40 438 1,750 11,949 156 624 2,436 20 S3 20 65 47 539 2,155 13,697 224 895 3,544 26 1,70

Large 56 241 128 1,531 6,125 30,688 425 0 5,733 19 L1 18 81 37 460 1,841 9,963 116 463 1,692 17 L2 17 87 50 536 2,142 11,471 174 696 2,277 20 L3 21 73 41 536 2,142 9,254 135 541 1,764 19

Table S4 Observed and expected number of species in each study site in southern Brazil based on scan sampling records.

Group Observed richnessa Nonparametric richness estimatorb ACE ICE Chao 2 Jack1 Mean SD % S1 57 (54) 60.7 65.7 62.7 68.3 64.3 3.3 88.6 S2 62 (55) 75.6 85.9 92.0 83.8 84.3 6.7 73.5 S3 59 (45) 61.8 77.2 78.8 78.8 74.1 8.2 79.6 L1 48 (48) 55.3 79.3 66.0 67.8 67.1 9.8 71.5 L2 59 (51) 70.8 103.6 91.3 85.3 87.8 13.6 67.2 L3 57 (56) 61.2 77.9 73.5 76.1 72.2 7.5 79.0 a Rarified number of species based on 1,700 feeding records per group shown in parentheses. b The four non-parametric estimators are based on species incidence (presence/absence): average-based coverage estimator (ACE), incidence-based coverage estimator (ICE), Chao2, and Jackknife 1. The mean (±SD) of the four estimators, and the percentage of species recorded (observed species/mean of estimator x 100) are also shown as a measure of sampling completeness (%).

7 Table S5 Observed and expected number of species in each study site in southern Brazil based on records from both scan and focal-animal sampling.

Group Observed richness Nonparametric richness estimator ACE ICE Chao 2 Jack1 Mean SD % S1 67 (63) 77.4 78.1 79.9 83.1 79.6 2.5 84.1 S2 77 (70) 104.3 116.8 129.2 107.3 114.4 11.2 67.3 S3 75 (56) 93.4 112.1 133.6 105.2 111.0 16.9 67.5 L1 57 (57) 64.0 94.7 98.0 97.4 88.5 16.4 64.4 L2 72 (65) 82.4 106.0 94.0 78.3 90.2 12.5 79.9 L3 61 (61) 65.0 78.0 74.3 82.5 74.9 7.4 81.4 a Rarified number of species based on 2,500 records per group shown in parentheses. b The four non-parametric estimators are based on species incidence (presence/absence): average-based coverage estimator (ACE), incidence-based coverage estimator (ICE), Chao2, and Jackknife 1. The mean (±SD) of the four estimators, and the percentage of species recorded (observed species/mean of estimator x 100) are also shown as a measure of sampling completeness (%). Note: To prepare this table, we pooled scan records with data from 5-min focal-animal samples conducted during the intervals of scan samples during feeding bouts. Focal observations allowed recording rarely consumed species (e.g., canopy climbers exploited during very short feeding bouts).

Table S6 Relative and absolute density of adult individuals of the palm Syagrus romanzoffiana in each study site.

Study site Fragment Relative density Absolute density

8 area (ha) (inds./ha) (total number of inds.) S1 1.6 0.6 1 S2 9.5 0.3 3 S3 2.9 0.3 1 L1 93 0.7 65 L2 106 0.3 32 L3 108 0.2 22

9 Figure S1. Seasonal availability and consumption of ripe fruit by brown howler monkeys. Solid lines represent the percentage of total feeding records devoted to ripe fruit.

Dashed lines represent food availability indices calculated as described in Methods. Results of linear regressions are shown in Table 3.

10 Figure S2. Seasonal availability and consumption of young leaves by brown howler monkeys. Solid lines represent the percentage of total feeding records devoted to young leaves. Dashed lines represent food availability indices calculated as described in Methods.

Results of linear regressions are shown in Table 3.

Figure S3. Seasonal availability and consumption of flowers by brown howler monkeys. Solid lines represent the percentage of total feeding records devoted to flowers.

11 Dashed lines represent food availability indices calculated as described in Methods. Results of linear regressions are shown in Table 3.