Primates in Peril

Recommendations

Info

Province, and adjacent regions of Imbabura and Carchi Provinces, as well as a small portion of northwest Pichincha Province. Some recent observations have been made in Los Bancos within Pichincha Province (Moscoso et al. 2011; S. Shanee unpublished data); and in Flavio Alfaro in the northwest of Manabí Province (Cervera and Griffith submitted). Nevertheless, it is uncertain if these populations are connected with other subpopulation of the subspecies. Priority areas for the conservation of A. f. fusciceps are the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve and its area of influence (mainly along the western border of unprotected forests), Corredor Awacachi, the Awa Ethnic Forest Reserve, north of the Mira River and close to the Colombian border, and the buffer and surrounding areas of these reserves (Moscoso et al. 2011). The buffer area of the Cotacachi Cayapas Ecological Reserve, especially de Tesoro Escondido Coop within the Canandé area, is possibly the area that is harbouring the greatest subpopulations of A. f. fusciceps in Ecuador (Moscoso 2010; Peck et al. 2011). Population density estimates in the buffer areas of the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve and the Awa Ethnic Reserve are 0.2–8.5 individuals/km² (Gavilánez- Endara 2006; Cueva 2008; Estévez-Noboa 2009; Moscoso 2010). The presence of Ateles fusciceps fusciceps in Colombia is uncertain, but there is an unconfirmed record of A. fusciceps in Barbacoas, Nariño. Thus far, no subpopulation bigger than 50 individuals has been found. Preliminary genetic analyses from samples from the south of Colombia and the north of Ecuador show two different monophyletic clades (Morales-Jimenez, unpublished data). References Cervera, L. and M. D. Griffith. Submitted. New population and range extension of the Critically Endangered Ecuadorian Brown-headed Spider Monkey (Ateles fusciceps fusciceps) in western Ecuador. Cueva, X. and W. E. Pozo R. 2010. Densidad y tamaño poblacional efectivo del bracilargo en el Noroccidente ecuatoriano. Serie Zoológica 6: 85–97. Estévez-Noboa, M. 2009. Estudio poblacional y uso de hábitat de Alouatta palliata, Ateles fusciceps y Cebus capucinus en el Bosque Protector Los Cedros, provincia de Imbabura. Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito. Gavilánez-Endara, M. M. 2006. Demografía, actividad y preferencia de hábitat de tres especies de primates (Alouatta palliata, Ateles fusciceps y Cebus capucinus) en un bosque nublado del noroccidente ecuatoriano. Bachelor’s thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. MAE. 2012. Línea base de deforestación del Ecuador continental. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. Quito. Moscoso R., P. 2010. Estado poblacional del mono araña de cabeza café (Ateles fusciceps) en el noroccidente del Ecuador, con notas ecológicas de una relación interespecífica con Alouatta palliata. Bachelor’s thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Moscoso R., P., V. A. Burbano and J. F. Freile. 2011. Guía de observación de primates en áreas naturales del Ecuador. Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador. Quito. Peck, M. R., J. Thorne, A. Mariscal, A. Baird, D. G. Tirira and D. Kniveton. 2011. Focusing conservation efforts for the Critically Endangered Brown-headed Spider Monkey (Ateles fusciceps) using remote sensing, modeling, and playback survey methods. International Journal of Primatology 32: 134–148. Tirira, D. G. 2004. Estado actual del mono araña de cabeza café (Ateles fusciceps Gray, 1866) (Primates: Atelidae) en el Ecuador. Lyonia 6: 17−24. Cuarón, A. D., A. L. Morales-Jiménez, A. Shedden., E. Rodríguez-Luna and P. C. de Grammont. 2008. Ateles fusciceps ssp. fusciceps. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. . Accessed 16 March 2014. Cueva, X. 2008. Parámetros demográficos de Ateles fusciceps fusciceps y Alouatta palliata aequatorialis en el noroccidente ecuatoriano. Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador. Quito. 77 Tirira, D. G., M. M. Gavilánez, P. Moscoso, R. Arcos D., S. de la Torre, W. E. Pozo R. and M. R. Peck. 2011. Mono araña de cabeza marrón (Ateles fusciceps). In: Libro Rojo de los mamíferos del Ecuador, D. G. Tirira (ed.), 2nd edición, pp.73–75. Fundación Mamíferos y Conservación, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador y Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. Publicación Especial 8. Quito.
Ka’apor Capuchin Cebus kaapori Queiroz, 1992 Brazil (2012, 2014) Marcos de Souza Fialho, Leandro Jerusalinsky, Maurício Talebi & Fabiano R. Melo Ka’apor capuchin (Cebus kaapori) (Illustration: Stephen D. Nash) The Ka’apor capuchin (Cebus kaapori), first described just over 20 years ago, is found in the eastern edge of the Brazilian Amazon, in the north-eastern part of the state of Pará and north-western part of the state of Maranhão (Queiroz 1992). Its range extends from the east of the lower Rio Tocantins to the Rio Grajaú where it enters the Zona dos Cocais (Queiroz 1992; Ferrari and Queiroz 1994; Ferrari and Souza 1994; Silva and Cerqueira 1998; Carvalho et al. 1999; Cunha et al. 2007). It has been observed only in tall lowland terra firma forest, generally below 300 m above sea level, and has not been recorded in seasonally inundated forest or secondary forest (Rylands and Mittermeier 2013). The birth season is from June to July. Besides surveys and abundance studies, recent research provided additional ecological information about the species (Oliveira et al. 2014). This capuchin is generally seen in small groups of up to ten individuals, sometimes accompanying the also Critically Endangered bearded sakis (Chiropotes satanas) (Ferrari and Lopes 1996; Carvalho et al. 1999). The known range of C. kaapori is suspected to include an area of around 15,000 km² in the most densely populated region (Carvalho et al. 1999), with the highest level of deforestation and habitat degradation, in the entire Brazilian Amazon. More than 70% of the forest has been destroyed in the process of converting 78 land to farmland and pasture (Carvalho et al. 1999; Almeida and Vieira, 2010). Deforestation continues, and most of the remaining forests now comprise isolated, usually hunted and degraded, patches of farmland. Cebus kaapori occurs in only two protected areas: the Gurupi Biological Reserve and the Lago de Tucuruí Environmental Protection Area. A large part of the forest of the Gurupí Biological Reserve has been logged and destroyed since its creation in 1988, and other pressures such as wildlife traffic and drugs plantations affect this reserve. Ferrari and Lopes (1996) estimated a density of 0.98 individuals/km² in this reserve. Another survey revealed a relative abundance of 0.99 groups/10 km in the Fazenda Cauaxi in the Paragominas (Carvalho et al. 1999). Lopes (1993) saw three groups in 480 km in the Gurupí Biological Reserve which means 0.06 groups/10 km. Recently, Buss et al. (2014) found 0.25 groups/10 km at the same Gurupí Biological Reserve. Campos (2009), using Population Viability Analysis by Vortex software, has mentioned that only three populations can be considered viable in the long term (next 100 years). These populations are found in Caru, Awá, Alto Turiaçu, Araraibóia Indigenous Areas in Maranhão State, and Alto Rio Guama Indigenous Area in Pará State, beside Gurupí Biological Reserve.
Page 2 and 3:
Primates in Peril: The World’s 25
Page 4 and 5:
Contents Acknowledgements..........
Page 6 and 7:
The World’s 25 Most Endangered Pr
Page 8 and 9:
Table 2. Primate species included o
Page 10 and 11:
Photos of some of the Top 25 Most E
Page 12 and 13:
7
Page 14 and 15:
9
Page 16 and 17:
Rondo Dwarf Galago Galagoides rondo
Page 18 and 19:
A new project to address these cons
Page 20 and 21:
potential and roloways have been re
Page 22 and 23:
Preuss’s Red Colobus Piliocolobus
Page 24 and 25:
Groves, C. P. 2007. The taxonomic d
Page 26 and 27:
There are six (perhaps seven) other
Page 28 and 29:
Grauer’s Gorilla Gorilla beringei
Page 30 and 31:
(WCS unpublished data), is encourag
Page 32 and 33: Lavasoa Mountains Dwarf Lemur Cheir
Page 34 and 35: Hapke, A., J. Fietz, S. D. Nash, D.
Page 36 and 37: of hunting and trapping are employe
Page 38 and 39: Red Ruffed Lemur Varecia rubra É.
Page 40 and 41: Rigamonti, M. M. 1993. Home range a
Page 42 and 43: In 2008, the Service d’Appui à l
Page 44 and 45: km 2 ) in Banks et al. (2007), for
Page 46 and 47: Salmona, J., R. Heller, E. Quémér
Page 48 and 49: Philippine Tarsier Carlito syrichta
Page 50 and 51: Javan Slow Loris Nycticebus javanic
Page 52 and 53: Moore et al. (2014) assessed the su
Page 54 and 55: Thorn, J. S., V. Nijman, D. Smith,
Page 56 and 57: peat-swamp forests, S. c. siberu ha
Page 58 and 59: Delacour’s Langur Trachypithecus
Page 60 and 61: Nadler, T. 2012. Reintroduction of
Page 62 and 63: one group consisting of two females
Page 64 and 65: and gunshots were recorded commonly
Page 66 and 67: ut do occur. Aggression is quite ra
Page 68 and 69: Western Purple-faced Langur Semnopi
Page 70 and 71: in the community and in nearby town
Page 72 and 73: Hainan Gibbon Nomascus hainanus (Th
Page 74 and 75: hainanus and the Eastern black gibb
Page 76 and 77: equire vast areas of contiguous rai
Page 78 and 79: 73 !"#$%#&'() #$%$#&'#(") *+,")+$#&
Page 80 and 81: is relatively well preserved and pr
Page 84 and 85: Due to the threats of habitat loss
Page 86 and 87: San Martín Titi Monkey Callicebus
Page 88 and 89: Northern Brown Howler Alouatta guar
Page 90 and 91: References Brazil, MMA, ICMBio-CPB.
Page 92 and 93: Editors’ addresses Mittermeier, R
Page 94 and 95: Louis, Jr., Edward E. Omaha’s Hen
Page 96 and 97: Vermeer, Jan Proyecto Mono Tocón,
Page 98: The Species Survival Commission (SS
show all

Primates in Peril

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?