Mantled howler monkey spatial foraging decisions reflect spatial and temporal knowledge of resource distributions.

An animal's ability to find and relocate food items is directly related to its survival and reproductive success. This study evaluates how mantled howler monkeys make spatial foraging decisions in the wild. Specifically, discrete choice models and agent-based simulations are used to test whether mantled howler monkeys on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, integrate spatial information in order to maximize new leaf flush and fruit gain while minimizing distance traveled. Several heuristic models of decision making are also tested as possible alternative strategies (movement to core home range areas instead of individual trees, travel along a sensory gradient, movement along arboreal pathway networks without a predetermined destination, straight-line travel in a randomly chosen direction, and random walks). Results indicate that although leaves are the single most abundant item in the mantled howler monkey diet, long-distance travel bouts target the areas with the highest concentrations of mature fruits. Observed travel patterns yielded larger estimated quantities of fruit in shorter distances traveled than all alternative foraging strategies. Thus, this study both provides novel information regarding how primates select travel paths and suggests that a highly folivorous primate integrates knowledge of spatiotemporal resource distributions in highly efficient foraging strategies.

Are we making the grade? Practices and reported efficacy measures of primate conservation education programs.

Conservation education is often employed alongside primate conservation efforts with the aim of changing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward non-human primates. Recommended best-use practices include longevity, use of program incentives, collaboration among educators, and adaptive program assessment, among others. This study surveys primate conservation education programs (PCEPs) to assess the frequency of suggested best-use practices, and to investigate impacts on program efficacy. Online surveys were collected from PCEPs in 2013-2014 (N = 43). The majority of programs reported lengths of 5-10 years, with participant involvement ranging widely from a day to several years. Non-economic and economic incentives were distributed by approximately half of all programs, with programs that provided economic incentives reporting positive participant attitude changes more frequently than those that did not (P = 0.03). While >70% of PCEPs consulted with community leaders, local teachers, and research scientists, only 45.9% collaborated with other conservation educators and only 27% collaborated with cultural experts such as cultural anthropologists. Programs that collaborated with other conservation educators were more likely to report reductions in threats to primates, specifically to bushmeat hunting and capture of primates for the pet trade (P = 0.07). Formal program evaluations were employed by 72.1% of all programs, with the majority of programs using surveys to assess changes to participant attitudes and knowledge. Formal evaluations of participant behavior, community attitudes and behaviors, and threats to primate populations were less common. While results indicate that PCEPs follow many suggested best-use practices, program impacts may be enhanced by greater discussion of economic incentivization, increased collaboration between conservation educators, and improved commitment to adaptive evaluation of changes to behaviors in addition to attitudes and knowledge.