• 中文核心期刊要目总览
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)
  • 中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)
  • 中国学术期刊文摘数据库(CSAD)
  • 中国学术期刊(网络版)(CNKI)
  • 中文科技期刊数据库
  • 万方数据知识服务平台
  • 中国超星期刊域出版平台
  • 国家科技学术期刊开放平台
  • 荷兰文摘与引文数据库(SCOPUS)
  • 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)
Cyril C GRUETER, 黎大勇, 蜂顺开, 任宝平. 2010: 云南白马雪山自然保护区猕猴和滇金丝猴的生态位分离(英文). 动物学研究, 31(5): 516-522. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1141.2010.05516
引用本文: Cyril C GRUETER, 黎大勇, 蜂顺开, 任宝平. 2010: 云南白马雪山自然保护区猕猴和滇金丝猴的生态位分离(英文). 动物学研究, 31(5): 516-522. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1141.2010.05516
Cyril C GRUETER, LI Da-Yong, FENG Shun-Kai, REN Bao-Ping. 2010. Niche partitioning between sympatric rhesus macaques and Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys at Baimaxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Research, 31(5): 516-522. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1141.2010.05516
Citation: Cyril C GRUETER, LI Da-Yong, FENG Shun-Kai, REN Bao-Ping. 2010. Niche partitioning between sympatric rhesus macaques and Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys at Baimaxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Research, 31(5): 516-522. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1141.2010.05516

云南白马雪山自然保护区猕猴和滇金丝猴的生态位分离(英文)

Niche partitioning between sympatric rhesus macaques and Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys at Baimaxueshan Nature Reserve, China

  • 摘要: 原则上,食叶的滇金丝猴(Rhinopithecus bieti)和杂食的猕猴(Macaca mulatta)是可以同地共栖的,但这两种灵长类究竟是如何同地共存却一直是一个鲜见涉足的问题。该文初步通过分析它们的食性和生境需求来阐明两者共存的可能性。在猕猴取食约22种植物中,有16种也是滇金丝猴的取食对象。两种灵长类都显示出喜食果实。人们尚未发现滇金丝猴涉足人类作物等相关资源,但发现猕猴经常侵食庄稼。这与其生活海拔不同有关:滇金丝猴一般生活在平均海拔为3 218 m的山林中,而猕猴活动在平均海拔为2 995 m的林地。猕猴也会涉足牧场,而滇金丝猴回避这种场地。对于这两个种,混合的落叶阔叶/针叶林是最频繁使用的森林类型;滇金丝猴很少进入常绿阔叶林(青冈属群落,利用率仅3%),而猕猴相对进入这类林型的机会远比滇金丝猴高(36%)。两个物种的群体间常相互远离(2.4 km)。当其相遇时,常是猕猴主动回避。上述结果提示滇金丝猴和猕猴是通过大生境分化利用和空间避让来共存的。尽管不同的生境利用策略一定程度上会反映种间竞争的存在,但这种不同更可能反映着它们不同的生理/生态需求。

     

    Abstract: Here we provide a preliminary assessment of dietary and habitat requirements of two sympatric primate taxa, a “simple-stomached” and “complex-stomached” species (Rhinopithecus bieti Colobinae vs. Macaca mulatta Cercopithecinae), as a basis for illuminating how the two coexist. Of ca. 22 plant food species consumed by the macaques, at least 16 were also eaten by the snub-nosed monkeys. Both species showed a preference for fruits. While the snub-nosed monkeys did not utilize any resources associated with human communities, rhesus macaques did occasionally raid agricultural crops. The mean elevation of the snub-nosed monkey group was 3,218 m, while the mean elevation of the macaque group was 2,995 m. Macaques were also spotted on meadows whereas snub-nosed monkeys evidently avoided these. For both species, mixed deciduous broadleaf/conifer forest was the most frequently used ecotype, but whereas evergreen broadleaf forest (Cyclobalanopsis community) accounted for only 3% of the location records of the snub-nosed monkeys, it accounted for 36% of the location records of the macaques. Groups of the two species usually kept a considerable spatial distance from one another (mean 2.4 km). One close encounter and confrontation between groups of the two species resulted in the macaque group moving away. Our findings suggest that the coexistence of the two taxa is facilitated via differential macrohabitat use and spatial avoidance. Although divergent habitat-use strategies may reflect interspecific competition, they may also merely reflect different physiological or ecological requirements.

     

/

返回文章
返回