The use of regenerating forest by woolly monkeys and other primates in Manú Learning Centre Reserve MSc Thesis Lucy Millington This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSc Primate Conservation 0 Faculty Ethics form HSS.E1 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Ethics Review Checklist This checklist should be completed by the student undertaking a research project which involves human participants and must be checked and signed by the project or dissertation supervisor. The checklist will identify whether an application for ethics approval needs to be submitted to the Faculty Research Ethics Officer. Before completing this form, you should refer to the University Code of Practice on Ethical Standards for Research involving Human Participants, available at www.brookes.ac.uk/res/ethics and to Faculty guidelines, which are included in the relevant on-line module or course handbook. You should bind a copy of the approved form in your final project or dissertation submission. As the principal researcher, you are responsible for exercising appropriate professional judgement in this review. Working Project Title: Woolly monkeys can use regenerating forest Student: Lucy Millington E-mail address: [email protected] Course/module: MSc Primate Conservation Dissertation Supervisor: Dr Giuseppe Donati E-mail address: [email protected] Yes No 1. If the study will require the cooperation of a gatekeeper for initial access to X groups or individuals to be recruited (e.g. pupils, employees of a company, members of a self-help group), will you be unable to obtain this? 2. Will the study involve discussions of or responses to questions which X participants might find sensitive? (e.g. substance abuse, traumatic experiences) 3. Could the study induce psychological stress or anxiety, or cause harm or X negative consequences, beyond the risks of everyday life? 4. If the study will involve participants who are unable to give informed consent X (e.g. children under the age of 16, people with learning disabilities), will you be unable to obtain permission from their parents or guardians (as appropriate)? 5. Are there any problems with the participants’ right to remain anonymous, or to X have the information they give not identifiable as theirs? 6. Will the study involve prolonged (more than an hour at a time) or repetitive X 1 testing? 7. Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses and compensation X for time) be offered to participants? 8. Will deception of participants be necessary during the study? X 9. Does the study involve access to confidential information? X 10. Is the right to withdraw from the study at anytime withheld, or not made X explicit? 11. Will the study involve NHS patients, staff, carers or premises? X If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions you must submit further details of your proposal using the school ethics approval application form HSS.E2 to the Faculty Research Ethics Officer, Maggie Wilson, [email protected] A decision form, E3, will then be returned to you by e-mail. If you answered ‘yes’ to question 11, an application must be submitted to the appropriate NHS Research Ethics Committee. Please contact the FREO for guidance. If you have answered ‘no’ to all questions, give or send the completed checklist to your supervisor for signature. He or she should discuss your proposed research and the ethical implications of this. You should keep a signed copy and bind or securely fasten this in your final project or dissertation submission. Please note that even if this is the case, it is still your responsibility to follow the Code of Practice on Ethical Standards and any School or professional guidelines in the conduct of your study. NOTE: When any doubt arises in relation to the above, always forward your proposal to the Faculty Research Ethics Officer. All materials submitted will be treated confidentially. I have read and understood the University’s Code of Practice on Ethical Standards for Research involving Human Participants Signed: Supervisor Signed: Student Investigator Date: 2 Statement of Originality Except for those parts in which it is explicitly stated to the contrary, this project is my own work. It has not been submitted for any degree at this or any other academic or professional institution. ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………… Signature Date Regulations Governing the Deposit and Use of Oxford Brookes University Projects/ Dissertations 1. The “top” copies of projects/dissertations submitted in fulfilment of programme requirements shall normally be kept by the School. 2. The author shall sign a declaration agreeing that the project/ dissertation be available for reading and photocopying at the discretion of the Dean of School in accordance with 3 and 4 below. 3. The Dean of School shall safeguard the interests of the author by requiring persons who consult the project/dissertation to sign a declaration acknowledging the author’s copyright. 4. Permission for any one other then the author to reproduce or photocopy any part of the dissertation must be obtained from the Head of School who will give his/her permission for such reproduction on to an extent which he/she considers to be fair and reasonable. I agree that this dissertation may be available for reading and photocopying. ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………… Signature Date 3 Abstract The woolly monkey is perhaps the least studied species of all the Neotropical primates, and of the few studies conducted on the genus (Lagothrix), few refer to their use of different forest types. There are even fewer studies on the Geoffroy’s woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) than on other species of the same genus, despite the fact that they are Endangered (IUCN, 2013). It is important to know what kind of forests that such an imperiled primate is able to use, in order to be able to create effective management plans, involving the protection and management of secondary forests as well as primary. This study aimed to determine whether the large-bodied frugivorous Geoffroy’s woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) are able to use secondary forests, and to what extent. This was achieved using the line transect method and recording the position of monkeys alongside which forest type they were using at that time. We found that woolly monkeys can use regenerating forest, they were observed feeding in a disturbed area of forest on a number of occasions. There was not enough data to calculate population densities, however encounter rates were calculated using transect data for Geoffroy’s woolly monkeys (Lagothrix cana), Peruvian spider monkeys (Ateles chamek), brown titi monkeys (Callicebus brunneus), brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and Peruvian squirrel monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis). All of the species studied were observed in regenerating forest. 4 Acknowledgments Thanks to my supervisor Dr Giuseppe Donati for all of his support and guidance from the planning stage through until the writing stage. Thank you for always responding quickly to my ridiculous questions and concerns, and often at unsociable hours! Many thanks to Andy Whitworth who gave me guidance whilst in the field, helping me to develop as a researcher, and teaching about conservation as a whole, as well as answering my pleas for help after returning home! A special thanks to Ruthmery Pillco Huarcaya for all of her help in the field, her knowledge of plants is much greater than my own, and she was indispensible to me, a great assistant and friend, without her I would never have finished my data collection. I would like to thank my sponsors (Cyril Rosen via PSGB and MBZ) for their belief in me and my project, without your financial support I would not have managed to complete it. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their financial and emotional support during this course and project. Without you all, this would not have been possible. 5 Table of Contents Ethics Form 1-2 Statement of Originality 3 Abstract 4 Acknowledgements 5 Table of Contents 6-7 List of Figures and Tables 8 1. Introduction 1.1 Deforestation and Habitat Loss 9-10 1.2 Response to Habitat Modification 1.2.1 Non Primate Responses 10-11 1.2.2 Primate Responses 11-13 1.2.3. Ateline Responses 13-14 1.3 Study species 1.3.1 Woolly monkeys (Lagothrix cana) 14-17 1.3.2 Spider monkeys (Ateles chamek) 17-18 1.3.3. Brown capuchins (Cebus apella) 19 1.3.4. Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis) 20 1.3.5. Brown titis (Callicebus brunneus) 21-22 6 1.4 Aims and Objectives 22 1.5 Thesis Structure 22 2. Study Site 2.1.1 Manú National Park 23 2.1.2 Manú Learning Centre Reserve 23-24 2.1.3 Forest Types 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Monkey distribution 29-31 2.2.2 Habitat assessment 31 3.1 Results 3.1.1 Linear encounter rates and distributions 32-39 3.1.2 Group size 39 4.1 Discussion 4.1.1 Discussion of results for woolly monkeys 39-40 4.1.2 Discussion of results for spider monkeys 41 4.1.3 Discussion of results for capuchin monkeys 41-42 4.1.4 Discussion of results for titi monkeys 42-43 4.1.5 Discussion of results for squirrel monkeys 43 4.1.6 Problems with this study 44 5.1 Conclusions 44-45 6.1 List of References 45-52 7 List of Tables and Figures List of Tables Table 1. Total transect lengths and repetitions Table 2. Transect schedule Table 3. A comparison of the mean encounter rate for each species, using data collected incidentally Table 4. A comparison of the mean group size for each species, deduced using different methodology (one collected during transects, and the other collected incidentally) Table 5.