Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
25 November 2021 Seasonality in daily movement patterns of mandrills revealed by combining direct tracking and camera traps
Shun Hongo, Yoshihiro Nakashima, Etienne François Akomo-Okoue, Fred Loïque Mindonga-Nguelet
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Movement is a fundamental characteristic of animals, but challenging to measure noninvasively. Noninvasive methods for measuring travel have different weaknesses, so multiple techniques need to be applied multiple techniques for reliable inferences. We used two methods, direct tracking and camera trapping, to examine the variation in time and seasonal differences in movement rates of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx), an elusive primate that lives in large groups in central Africa. In a 400-km2 rainforest area in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon, we tracked unidentified groups 46 times from 2009 to 2013. We systematically placed 157 terrestrial camera traps in the same area from 2012 to 2014 and recorded groups 309 times. Generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) of the tracking data indicated that the group travel speed varied with time and season. In the fruiting season, the movement rate fluctuated with time in a bimodal pattern, whereas in the nonfruiting season, it increased monotonously with time. The predicted day range was longer in the fruiting season (6.98 km) than in the nonfruiting season (6.06 km). These seasonal differences suggest responses to changes in food resources and temperature. Camera-trap detection rates showed similar temporal and seasonal patterns to the tracking data, allowing us to generalize our findings to the population level. Moreover, cameras never detected mandrills at night, and we observed that they slept high in trees and hardly moved until the next morning, all suggesting their strict avoidance of nighttime movement. This study demonstrated the significance of the multiple-method approach in drawing robust conclusions on temporal patterns of animal movement.

Movement is a fundamental characteristic of animals with each species adjusting the movement patterns differently with time and season to meet various ecological needs (Nathan et al. 2008) such as foraging (Grotta-Neto et al. 2019; Hanya et al. 2020); mating and reproduction (Mizumoto et al. 2020); thermoregulation (Spitz et al. 2018; Zollner et al. 2020); and avoidance of predators (Pokallus and Pauli 2016; Picardi et al. 2019), parasites (Kärvemo et al. 2020), and human disturbance (Tucker et al. 2018; Hertel et al. 2021). Researchers have used different methods to study animal movement. Among these, telemetry is an increasingly popular option that involves the attachment of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, which allows collecting positional data of focal animals with high temporal and spatial resolution over several years (Hussey et al. 2015; Kays et al. 2015). This technology, however, requires capture and immobilization of the animal with additional energy expenditure while carrying the device, which raises ethical issues (McIntyre 2015) and confounds movement behavior (Dechen Quinn et al. 2012).

In cases where telemetry devices are not preferable or feasible, including studies on protected populations or elusive species, researchers have to employ other methods to collect the movement data. Direct tracking of individual animals or groups of animals is a traditional method to estimate the movement rate (distance traveled per unit time) and day range (daily travel distance) of large mammals (Matsumoto-Oda 2002; Kolowski et al. 2007). It allows detailed movement and behavioral recording without the need for capture (Peterson and Weckerly 2018; Saito and Idani 2020). This method, however, demands a high amount of time and labor, especially for species that require habituation to observe their natural movements. Consequently, records are often fragmented and collected from only a small number of focal individuals or groups, making it difficult to generalize findings to the population level. Moreover, tracking is highly challenging at night. These weaknesses are particularly evident when studying animals living in closed habitats with long day ranges.

Alternatively, motion-triggered trail cameras, often called camera traps, have the potential to indirectly elicit information on the temporal patterns of animal movement from image records. Camera trapping is now a standard method in studying animal behavior and ecology (O'Connell et al. 2011; Burton et al. 2015; Caravaggi et al. 2017). In addition to minimal impact on animal behavior, this technique allows 24-hour monitoring of terrestrial animals, albeit over a small area, and enables population-level inference by random or systematic camera placement.

Rowcliffe et al. (2016) proposed an approach to estimate the average movement rate and day range of terrestrial animals using camera traps. This method requires fine-scale measurements of recorded movement, which represents considerable labor in the field (Palencia et al. 2019). Instead, the relative variation in movement rates over time can be inferred based on the detection rate (the number of camera-trap records per unit time) of focal animal individuals or groups. Rowcliffe et al. (2014) formulated four determinants of detection rate at a given time: animal density, camera detection area size, movement rate, and active proportion (number of individuals or groups in the population on the move). It is reasonable to assume a constant animal density over the daily cycle when cameras are placed randomly or systematically. In addition, the size difference in the detection area between day and night should not be problematic for noncathemeral species. Therefore, if the constancy of active proportion can be confirmed by another method, time variation in detection rates directly translates into the temporal pattern of movement rates.

Each method used in animal movement research has its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is essential to apply different approaches to the same question for reliable inferences. Comparison and integration of results from multiple methods, termed triangulation by Munafò and Davey Smith (2018), is crucial for verifying and generalizing the scientific findings (Nuñez et al. 2019). Studies on animal movement, however, have rarely applied multiple independent field methods to the same population (but see Fedigan et al. 1988; Thompson et al. 2018).

The present study examines seasonality in the temporal patterns of group movement rates of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) by integrating data from direct tracking and camera trapping. This endangered primate, classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Abernethy and Maisels 2019), inhabits rainforests in central Africa and has an omnivorous diet with a preference for fruits (Abernethy and White 2013). Mandrills typically live in female-biased groups of 300 to >800 individuals (Abernethy et al. 2002; Hongo 2014) with a vast home range of ∼50 km2 (White et al. 2010). Large groups travel mainly on the ground during the day and sleep in trees at night (Hoshino et al. 1984). Given that several studies have reported seasonal changes in their diet (Hoshino 1985; Nsi Akoue et al. 2017), habitat use (Hongo et al. 2018), and reproduction (Setchell et al. 2002; Setchell and Wickings 2004; Hongo et al. 2016), we expected that the movement rate patterns would also vary seasonally. Nevertheless, our knowledge of mandrill movement patterns is quite limited because the dense rainforest vegetation, large group size, and large home range size prevent continuous tracking. To date, only a tracking (Hoshino 1985) and telemetry (Brockmeyer et al. 2015) study have estimated day ranges of small groups (95–120 individuals) and reported that the groups traveled more during the fruiting season.

We hypothesized that large mandrill groups would change their temporal movement patterns in response to the seasonal environments of African rainforests. We conducted three lines of data collection and analysis. First, we employed a direct tracking method on several unidentified groups for as long as possible to record their movement patterns. The constancy of the active proportion and the seasonal difference in the group movement rate patterns were then examined. We predicted that mandrill groups seasonally change their temporal movement patterns according to fruit availability. Second, we used camera traps systematically installed in the study area to record the same mandrill groups. The seasonal difference in temporal patterns of the detection rate was examined employing the method of Rowcliffe et al. (2014). We predicted that daily patterns of the detection rates also vary with the seasonal change in fruit availability. Lastly, we compared the results from the two methods by examining the similarity in the shape of temporal patterns between the direct-tracking movement rate and the camera-trap detection rate. We predicted that if the two methods accurately capture the seasonality in daily movement behaviors, the resulting patterns from the two data sets will be similar to each other.

Materials and Methods

This study complied with American Society of Mammalogist guidelines (Sikes et al. 2016) and the Gabonese Republic laws. We conducted fieldwork with approval from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (CENAREST, N° AR0031/11/MENESRSIC/CENAREST/CG/CST/CSAR) and the Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN, N° 000017/PR/ANPN/SE/CS/AEPN, N° 000022/PR/ANPN/SE/CS/AEPN).

Study area and study population

We conducted the study within 400 km2 in the eastern part of Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon. Our base camp was located at S2°19′ and E10°34′. This area, close to the southern limit of mandrills' geographic range (Abernethy and Maisels 2019), included savannah and different vegetation types of forests (Fig. 1). We have been studying mandrills in this area since 2008 and successfully counted three groups of 169, 350, and 442 individuals (Hongo 2014), but no groups have yet been habituated.

The study area exhibits seasonality in the rainfall and temperature. With the annual rainfall of approximately 1,700 mm, monthly amounts vary seasonally. Typically, monthly rainfall exceeds 100 mm from October to April, whereas it drops below 100 mm from May to September. The rainy periods are, however, interrupted irregularly by low-rainfall months (Takenoshita et al. 2008). During the entire study period (55 months from August 2009 to February 2014), there were five months with the rainfall <100 mm between October and May (January and December in 2011; January, March, and April in 2012). Monthly maximum and minimum temperatures ranged from 27 to 34°C and 19 to 24°C, respectively, and fluctuated with the season (about 5°C higher in October–May than in June–August).

Fruit production and mandrill diets also show regular and seasonal fluctuations in the study area. Based on a 2-year transect survey in 2012–2013, the mean densities of fallen fruit clusters were highest (30–40 clusters/km) in December–February, decreased substantially in March–August (5–10 clusters/km), and increased again in September–November (15–25 clusters/km) (Hongo et al. 2018). Mandrills adjust their diets to the fruiting phenology. They feed on more pulp of fruits (including Cola spp., Gambeya africana, and Santiria trimera) from September to February, whereas they eat more woody tissue and increase dietary diversity from March to August (Hongo et al. 2018). From these findings, we defined September to February as the fruiting season and March to August as the nonfruiting season.

Direct tracking

Over 25 months between August 2009 and September 2013, SH conducted foot patrols with well-trained field assistants to search for mandrill groups throughout the study area. We organized one to three search teams of two or three people on each day of the patrol. Upon finding a group, we tracked it from about 50 m behind to avoid disturbing its movement. Visibility in the forest was generally around 30 m, so we tracked the groups relying on the females' long-distance calls (Kudo 1987). We continued the tracking sessions until we lost the group or observed mandrills beginning to sleep in the trees. We tracked the groups only between 06:00 and 18:00 because nighttime fieldwork was not permitted by ANPN for safety reasons.

During the tracking sessions, we recorded the coordinates and elevation about every 15 min using a GPSmap 60csx/62sportable device (Garmin International, Inc., Olathe, Kansas). When lagging more than 100 m behind the group, we stopped the recording until we caught up with the group again.

Camera trapping

YN, SH, EFA-O, and FLM-N conducted a camera-trap survey continuously from January 2012 to February 2014. This survey was initially designed to estimate the population density of forest duikers (Nakashima et al. 2020). We used the Bushnell Trophy Cam (model numbers 119435 and 119436, Overland Park, Kansas) with a maximum detection distance of approximately 10 m and a 50° field of view. Cameras recorded a 30-s video file in response to an animal passage with a 30-s minimum interval before a new recording could be triggered.

We installed cameras at 157 stations with three to 10 stations set at regular intervals of 200 or 400 m along 20 line transects of 1–2 km (Fig. 1b). We did not intentionally select animal trails or particular vegetation types for camera stations, nor did we use bait or lures. We strapped each camera to a tree 10 m away from the transect and adjusted it to be parallel to the ground at the height of 30 cm. We then cleared the undergrowth in front of cameras to ensure detection of animal passages. We checked the cameras on a monthly basis.

Fig. 1.

Map of the study area in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon, depicting tracking paths of mandrill groups (2009–2013) and camera-trap stations (2012–2014).

img-z4-1_159.jpg

Data analysis

SH and YN performed statistical analyses using R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team 2020) and RStudio version 1.4.1106 (RStudio Team 2021). All statistical tests were two-sided, and we considered P-values <0.05 as statistically significant. All the data analyzed and the R code used in the study are accessible in a Dryad data repository (Hongo et al. 2021).

Data analysis 1: tracking data.—We used the tracking data to examine active proportion and temporal movement rate patterns. Tracking sessions that lasted <30 min were discarded from the analysis because the presence of observers probably had affected the group movement. From the remaining 46 sessions, we calculated the movement distances and time durations from the GPS tracking points (N = 690).

We estimated the measurement error distribution of GPS positioning in our study area by leaving the GPS device in the forest for 225 min and recording the same point coordinates every minute. The GPS measurement error distribution was constructed using the distances between consecutive coordinates in a generalized linear model following a gamma distribution. The estimated mean measurement error was 8.8 m, and its 95% prediction interval was 1.4–24.5 m.

To examine the active proportion, we categorized the 690 data points as either a move or pause. Based on field observations and the GPS measurement error distribution estimated, we judged that the groups paused when the movement rate was <25 m per 15 min.

To model the effects of time and season on the group movement rate, we constructed generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) using the R package “gamm4” version 0.2-6 (Wood and Scheipl 2020). We assumed the response variable (movement distance in meters) followed a gamma distribution, and used the log link function. The linear predictor of the full model contained the following components: an offset term of time duration in minutes, three fixed effects (a smooth term of time of day, a parametric term of season [fruiting, nonfruiting] and the interaction between time of day and season effects), and a random smooth effect (the effect assuming that the temporal patterns of movement rate are randomly different between the tracking sessions). We tested for the fixed interaction effect and the random smooth effect with likelihood ratio tests using the “anova” function. We also performed model validation for the full model and the optimal model (the model including only significant effects) by graphically checking the residual plots and the normal Q–Q plots (Zuur et al. 2009). Finally, we estimated mean day ranges from 06:00 to 17:30 based on the optimal model.

Data analysis 2: camera-trap data.—Our terrestrial camera traps functioned for a total of 64,854 camera days (mean number of working cameras per day = 84.4 ± SD 22.8, range: 7–128). We used only mandrill group records of videos showing at least two or more reproductive females or immatures for the analysis. We discarded detections of solitary males and those whose social composition was unclear. In cases where a group triggered the same camera repeatedly at intervals of <10 min, we considered these consecutive records as a single detection of a group and used only the time of the initial trigger (Rowcliffe et al. 2014). As a result, we obtained 309 detections along 15 transects.

We modeled the temporal variation in the detection rates as Von Mises kernel probability density functions using the “fitact” function in the R package “activity” version 1.3 (Rowcliffe 2019). Modeling the data of the fruiting and nonfruiting seasons separately, we tested for the seasonal difference in the shape of temporal patterns using a randomization test of the “compareCkern” function in the “activity” package.

Data analysis 3: comparison between direct tracking and camera trapping.—To examine the similarity in the shapes of temporal patterns obtained by the two methods, we remodeled the temporal variation in the camera-trap detection rate while correcting the movement rate effect. We first generated the predicted values of the mean movement rate at each camera-trap detection time from the optimal model in the direct tracking analysis. We then weighted the camera-trap detection probability with the inverse of the predicted mean movement rate using the “wt” argument in the “fitact” function. We expected that if the original patterns of the detection rate are functions of movement rates only, the resulting weighted patterns would be flat throughout the daytime.

Results

Tracking data.—In the 46 tracking sessions, we tracked mandrill groups for 2.6 ± 2.0 ( ± SD) km during a mean of 3.8 ±2.3 ( ± SD) hours (Table 1). We never observed mandrill groups traveling through the savannah (Fig. 1).

Group active proportion was high throughout the daytime with tracking points considered to be a group pause (i.e., movement rate of <100 m/h) accounting for only 3.1% in the fruiting season and 7.5% in the nonfruiting season (Fig. 2). We observed group members sleeping >20 m high in the canopy during four sessions, of which all were after 17:44. In the early morning of the following days, we found the groups in almost the same places.

As a result of likelihood ratio tests, both the fixed interaction effect (ΔD1 = 8.70, P = 0.013) and the random smooth effect (ΔD1 = 9.74, P = 0.0077) of the movement rate GAMM were statistically significant. This suggests that temporal patterns of the movement rate variations randomly differed between sessions and there was a general difference between the two seasons. According to the optimal model (Table 2), the movement rate variation showed a bimodal shape in the fruiting season, with peaks at 10:10 and 15:10 and a slight trough at 12:20 (Fig. 2a). The nonfruiting season trend, in contrast, was a monotonous increase with time (Fig. 2b). The curve in the nonfruiting season did not turn downward until sunset, probably because of the small sample size near dusk. Mean day ranges predicted by the optimal model were longer in the fruiting season (6.98 km) than in the nonfruiting season (6.06 km).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics on direct tracking (2009–2013) and camera trapping (2012–2014) of mandrill groups in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon.

img-z5-10_159.gif

Camera-trap data.—Our terrestrial camera traps detected mandrill groups 309 times between 06:39 and 18:17 (Table 1). The shapes of temporal variation in the detection rate were statistically different between the fruiting and nonfruiting seasons (randomization test: observed overlap index = 0.829, mean null overlap index = 0.904, SD of the null distribution = 0.030, P = 0.015). In the fruiting season, the temporal variation had a bimodal shape with peaks at 08:50 and 16:20 and a trough at 14:10 (Fig. 3a). In the nonfruiting season, the shape was uni-modal with a peak at 14:50 (Fig. 3b).

Comparison between direct tracking and camera trapping.—After correcting for the movement rate effect, temporal variation patterns of the camera-trap detections changed their shapes. The shape for the fruiting season model altered only slightly: The two peaks slightly shifted towards twilight with the morning peak becoming more pronounced (Fig. 4a). For the nonfruiting season model, the afternoon peak became lower after the correction, leading to a flatter pattern throughout the daytime (Fig. 4b).

Discussion

Animal movement is a fascinating, but difficult behavior to measure noninvasively and different methods have strengths and weaknesses. We examined the seasonality in movement rate patterns of mandrill groups using two methods—direct tracking and camera trapping. Direct tracking revealed that the groups continuously moved throughout the daytime, without long pauses, and avoided the savannah. Group movement rate varied with time and season. In the fruiting season, the group day range was longer, and the temporal movement rate formed a bimodal pattern. In the nonfruiting season, the day range was shorter, and the movement rate increased monotonously with time during the day. Terrestrial camera traps detected the groups only in the daytime. The detection rate generally replicated the movement rate patterns. Correcting for the movement rate effect, the pattern of daytime detection rate flattened in the nonfruiting season, but a flattening did not occur in the fruiting season.

Fig. 2.

Temporal variations in the movement rate of mandrill groups during (a) the fruiting season and (b) the nonfruiting season in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon. White circles show data points at which groups were moving, and filled circles represent those for temporal pauses. Bold lines indicate the predicted general trend based on the optimal model, and shaded areas represent the 95% CI. Dotted curves show the random smooth effect—predictions for each tracking session.

img-z6-1_159.jpg

Table 2.

Parameter estimates of the optimal model for the movement rate of mandrill groups in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon.

img-z6-4_159.gif

By integrating the two methods, we reliably revealed the seasonality in the movement rate patterns, as predicted. Our direct tracking showed a constantly high active proportion of the groups through the daytime (Fig. 2), suggesting that the camera-trap detection rate was a function of the movement rate alone (Rowcliffe et al. 2014). The estimated patterns of the detection rates confirmed this suggestion. Similarly for both methods, the temporal variation formed a bimodal pattern in the fruiting season and a monotonous increase in the nonfruiting season (Figs. 2 and 3). Our tracking data had a small sample size and most tracking sessions did not last throughout the daytime (Table 1). Patterns derived from this fragmented tracking data, nevertheless, have been replicated by our systematic camera trapping. This allows us to generalize our findings to the study population.

Why do mandrills change the group movement patterns between seasons? We hypothesize that they respond to seasonal changes in food resources and temperature. Slower general movement rates and a shorter day range in the nonfruiting season may be due to dietary shifts. In the fruiting season, mandrills mainly eat fresh fruits, which are clumped in trees. In the nonfruiting season, they feed on dispersed foods such as buried seeds and woody tissue in the forest litter (Hoshino 1985; Hongo et al. 2018). Large mandrill groups in our study area may need to move slower to forage for the dispersed foods during the season when the preferred foods are scarce, as observed in smaller groups in other sites (Hoshino 1985; Brockmeyer et al. 2015) and other primates (Hemingway and Bynum 2005; Tsuji 2010; Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2018; Green et al. 2020).

Fig. 3.

Temporal variations in the camera-trap detection rate of mandrill groups during (a) the fruiting season and (b) the nonfruiting season in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon. Histograms represent the data frequency. Bold and dotted curves show the estimated kernel densities and their 95% CI, respectively.

img-z7-1_159.jpg

Fig. 4.

Corrected temporal variations in camera-trap detection rates of mandrill groups during (a) the fruiting season and (b) the nonfruiting season in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon. The weighted patterns corrected for the movement rate effect (bold lines) are compared with the original patterns (fine lines, same as in Fig. 3). Solid and dotted curves show the estimated functions and the 95% CI, respectively.

img-z7-3_159.jpg

The bimodal movement pattern observed in the fruiting season may be the result of thermoregulation. The ambient temperature increases during the fruiting season, often exceeding 35°C around noon (Takenoshita et al. 2008). The observed decrease in the movement rate during this season suggests that many individuals in the group relaxed their foraging activity in midday to avoid excessive body temperature increases. Behavioral thermoregulation is crucial for mammals to maintain homeostasis (Weiss and Laties 1961; Terrien et al. 2011). Reduced movement and activity during the hottest hours are reported in many diurnal mammals, including Cabrera voles (Microtus cabrerae) (Grácio et al. 2017), Verreaux's sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi) (Erkert and Kappeler 2004), and moose (Alces alces) (Alston et al. 2020), as well as birds (Silva et al. 2015) and lizards (Foa and Bertolucci 2001).

Although the two methods exhibited similar temporal patterns in each season, our analytical comparison showed that the fruiting-season patterns were not exactly consistent between the methods (Fig. 4a). Part of this inconsistency may be because two study periods did not overlap exactly. Direct tracking was conducted between 2009 and 2013 and the camera-trap survey was carried out from 2012 to 2014. Group movement patterns were different from day to day (Figs. 1 and 2), so the noncoincident study periods may have led to the observed difference in the results. Also, the analytical methods were different (GAMM vs. kernel density function). These methodological differences may have generated the mismatch in patterns, as also reported in other studies applying multiple methods (Kamgaing et al. 2018; Steinbeiser et al. 2019; Wei et al. 2020). Notwithstanding these differences, we suggest there is a bimodal movement rate pattern in the fruiting season, but further investigation is needed to determine the intensity and time of the peaks.

An interesting secondary finding was that mandrill groups moved exclusively during the daytime. On four occasions, we observed mandrills beginning to sleep high in trees before 18:00, and the groups hardly moved until the next morning. Camera traps strongly supported these observations because they did not detect the groups between 18:30 and 06:30 (Table 1), regardless of the season. Several primate species living in much smaller groups sometimes travel on the ground at night (Hanya et al. 2018; Tagg et al. 2018), so it is surprising that the large mandrill groups totally avoided terrestrial movement at night, although they may be active in the trees (Mochida and Nishikawa 2014). Nocturnal ground movement is also reported in wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta)—a smaller-sized primate living in smaller groups than mandrills (LaFleur et al. 2014). Although mandrills are known prey of leopards (Panthera pardus) and central African pythons (Python sebae) (Henschel et al. 2011; Abernethy and White 2013), it is questionable whether this avoidance of nocturnal movement can be solely explained by predator avoidance. Future research is required to more closely study their nocturnal behavior to better understand predator–prey interactions and their influence on movements.

In conclusion, our multiple-method approach reliably revealed the seasonality in temporal movement patterns and the avoidance of nocturnal movement in mandrill groups. Direct tracking demonstrated that the groups constantly moved throughout the daytime. This enabled us to interpret the temporal variations in camera-trap detections as the movement rate variations. The absence of nighttime recordings during the extensive camera-trap survey reinforced the anecdotal observations of sedentary groups at night. The observed differences in the movement rate patterns during the two seasons suggested different responses to seasonal food resources and temperature. The strict avoidance of nocturnal movement implied predator avoidance, but further investigation is required to confirm this behavior. Because each wildlife research method has specific weaknesses, and researchers may have confirmation bias (Marsh and Hanlon 2007), applying multiple techniques to the same questions is essential for robust conclusions, particularly when studying elusive and endangered animals.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate CENAREST and ANPN for permission to conduct the study. Yuji Takenoshita, Shiho Fujita, and all PROCOBHA researchers and staff provided advice and assistance for this study. We also thank field assistants in Doussala village for their support in fieldwork. Hiroshi Himori, Hikari Ishijima, Aya Kokubu, and Takahiro Yamagishi helped us in the camera-trap video analysis. We are grateful to Naofumi Nakagawa, Juichi Yamagiwa, Michio Nakamura, Hiroshi Ihobe, and Eiji Inoue for constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Rafael Reyna-Hurtado and two anonymous reviewers gave constructive and insightful comments to our earlier manuscript. This study was funded by JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers JP19107007 (to Juichi Yamagiwa), and JP12J01884 and JP18K14803 (to SH), Kyoto University Global COE Program A06 (to SH), and JST/JICA-SATREPS (to Juichi Yamagiwa). This study was also supported by the Program for the Development of Next-generation Leading Scientists with Global Insight (L-INSIGHT), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan.

Literature Cited

1.

Abernethy K., Maisels F. 2019. Mandrillus sphinx. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:e.T12754A17952325.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12754A17952325. en. Date of deposit December 2019; Accessed 6 October 2021. Google Scholar

2.

Abernethy K.A., White L.J.T. 2013. Mandrillus sphinx. Mandrill. In: Butynski T., Kingdon J., Kalina J., editors. Mammals of Africa. 2. Primates. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; p. 192–196. Google Scholar

3.

Abernethy K.A., White L.J.T., Wickings E.J. 2002. Hordes of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): extreme group size and seasonal male presence. Journal of Zoology 258:131–137. Google Scholar

4.

Alston J.M., Joyce M.J., Merkle J.A. Moen R.A. 2020. Temperature shapes movement and habitat selection by a heat-sensitive ungulate. Landscape Ecology 35:1961–1973. Google Scholar

5.

Brockmeyer T., Kappeler P.M., Willaume E., Benoit L., Mboumba S., Charpentier M.J. 2015. Social organization and space use of a wild mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) group. American Journal of Primatology 77:1036–1048. Google Scholar

6.

Burton A.C., Neilson E., Moreira D., Ladle A., Steenweg R., Fisher J.T., Bayne E., Boutin S. 2015. Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:675–685. Google Scholar

7.

Caravaggi A., Banks P.B., Burton A.C., Finlay C.M.V., Haswell P.M., Hayward M.W., Rowcliffe M.J., Wood M.D., Pettorelli N., Sollmann R. 2017. A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 3:109–122. Google Scholar

8.

Dechen Quinn A.C., Williams D.M., Porter W.F. 2012. Postcapture movement rates can inform data-censoring protocols for GPS-collared animals. Journal of Mammalogy 93:456–463. Google Scholar

9.

Erkert H.G., Kappeler P.M. 2004. Arrived in the light: diel and seasonal activity patterns in wild Verreaux's sifakas (Propithecus v. verreauxi; Primates: Indriidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57:174–186. Google Scholar

10.

Fedigan L.M., Fedigan L., Chapman C., Glander K.E. 1988. Spider monkey home ranges: a comparison of radio telemetry and direct observation. American Journal of Primatology 16:19–29. Google Scholar

11.

Foa A., Bertolucci C. 2001. Temperature cycles induce a bimodal activity pattern in ruin lizards: masking or clock-controlled event? A seasonal problem. Journal of Biological Rhythms 16:574–584. Google Scholar

12.

Grácio A.R., Mira A., Beja P., Pita R. 2017. Diel variation in movement patterns and habitat use by the Iberian endemic Cabrera vole: implications for conservation and monitoring. Mammalian Biology 83:21–26. Google Scholar

13.

Green S.J., Boruff B.J., Niyigaba P., Ndikubwimana I., Grueter C.C. 2020. Chimpanzee ranging responses to fruit availability in a high-elevation environment. American Journal of Primatology 82:e23119. Google Scholar

14.

Grotta-Neto F., Peres P.H.F., Piovezan U., Passos F.C., Duarte J.M.B. 2019. Influential factors on gray brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira) activity and movement in the Pantanal, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 100:454–463. Google Scholar

15.

Hanya G., Otani Y., Hongo S., Honda T., Okamura H., Higo Y. 2018. Activity of wild Japanese macaques in Yakushima revealed by camera trapping: patterns with respect to season, daily period and rainfall. PLoS One 13:e0190631. Google Scholar

16.

Hanya G., Yoshihiro S.I., Hayaishi S., Takahata Y. 2020. Ranging patterns of Japanese macaques in the coniferous forest of Yakushima: home range shift and travel rate. American Journal of Primatology 82:e23185. Google Scholar

17.

Hemingway C.A., Bynum N. 2005. The influence of seasonality on primate diet and ranging. In: Brockman D.K., van Schaik C.P., editors. Seasonality in primates: studies of living and extinct human and non-human primates. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; p. 57–104. Google Scholar

18.

Henschel P., Hunter L.T.B., Coad L., Abernethy K.A., Mühlenberg M. 2011. Leopard prey choice in the Congo Basin rainforest suggests exploitative competition with human bushmeat hunters. Journal of Zoology 285:11–20. Google Scholar

19.

Hertel A.G., Royaute R., Zedrosser A., Mueller T. 2021. Biologging reveals individual variation in behavioural predictability in the wild. Journal of Animal Ecology 90:723–737. Google Scholar

20.

Hongo S. 2014. New evidence from observations of progressions of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): a multilevel or non-nested society? Primates 55:473–481. Google Scholar

21.

Hongo S., Nakashima Y., Akomo-Okoue E.F., Mindonga-Nguelet F.L. 2016. Female reproductive seasonality and male influxes in wild mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). International Journal of Primatology 37:416–437. Google Scholar

22.

Hongo S., Nakashima Y., Akomo-Okoue E.F., Mindonga-Nguelet F.L. 2018. Seasonal change in diet and habitat use in wild mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). International Journal of Primatology 39:27–48. Google Scholar

23.

Hongo S., Nakashima Y., Akomo-Okoue E.F., Mindonga-Nguelet F.L. 2021. Data from: seasonality in daily movement patterns of mandrills revealed by combining direct tracking and camera traps. Dryad Digital Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fj6q573td. Updated 24 May 2021; Accessed 6 October 2021. Google Scholar

24.

Hoshino J. 1985. Feeding ecology of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) in Campo Animal Reserve, Cameroon. Primates 26:248–273. Google Scholar

25.

Hoshino J., Mori A., Kudo H., Kawai M. 1984. Preliminary report on the grouping of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) in Cameroon. Primates 25:295–307. Google Scholar

26.

Hussey N.E., Kessel S.T., Aarestrup K., Cooke S.J., Cowley P.D., Fisk A.T., Harcourt R.G., Holland K.N., Iverson S.J., Kocik J.F. et al. 2015. Aquatic animal telemetry: a panoramic window into the underwater world. Science 348:1255642. Google Scholar

27.

Kamgaing T.O.W., Bobo K.S., Djekda D., Azobou K.B.V., Hamadjida B.R., Balangounde M.Y., Simo K.J., Yasuoka H. 2018. Population density estimates of forest duikers (Philantomba monticola & Cephalophus spp.) differ greatly between survey methods. African Journal of Ecology 56:908–916. Google Scholar

28.

Kärvemo S., Wikström G., Widenfalk L.A., Höglund J., Laurila A. 2020. Chytrid fungus dynamics and infections associated with movement distances in a red-listed amphibian. Journal of Zoology 311:164–174. Google Scholar

29.

Kays R., Crofoot M.C., Jetz W., Wikelski M. 2015. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348:aaa2478. Google Scholar

30.

Kolowski J.M., Katan D., Theis K.R., Holekamp K.E. 2007. Daily patterns of activity in the spotted hyena. Journal of Mammalogy 88:1017–1028. Google Scholar

31.

Kudo H. 1987. The study of vocal communication of wild mandrills in Cameroon in relation to their social structure. Primates 28:289–308. Google Scholar

32.

LaFleur M., Sauther M., Cuozzo F., Yamashita N., Jacky Youssouf I.A., Bender R. 2014. Cathemerality in wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) in the spiny forest of Tsimanampetsotsa National Park: camera trap data and preliminary behavioral observations. Primates 55:207–217. Google Scholar

33.

Marsh D.M., Hanlon T.J. 2007. Seeing what we want to see: confirmation bias in animal behavior research. Ethology 113:1089–1098. Google Scholar

34.

Matsumoto-Oda A. 2002. Behavioral seasonality in Mahale chimpanzees. Primates 43:103–117. Google Scholar

35.

McIntyre T. 2015. Animal telemetry: tagging effects. Science 349:596–597. Google Scholar

36.

Mizumoto N., Rizo A., Pratt S.C., Chouvenc T. 2020. Termite males enhance mating encounters by changing speed according to density. Journal of Animal Ecology 89:2542–2552. Google Scholar

37.

Mochida K., Nishikawa M. 2014. Sleep duration is affected by social relationships among sleeping partners in wild Japanese macaques. Behavioural Processes 103:102–104. Google Scholar

38.

Munafò M.R., Davey Smith G. 2018. Robust research needs many lines of evidence. Nature 553:399–401. Google Scholar

39.

Nakashima Y., Hongo S., Akomo-Okoue E.F. 2020. Landscape-scale estimation of forest ungulate density and biomass using camera traps: applying the REST model. Biological Conservation 241:108381. Google Scholar

40.

Nathan R., Getz W.M., Revilla E., Holyoak M., Kadmon R., Saltz D., Smouse P.E. 2008. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:19052–19059. Google Scholar

41.

Nsi Akoue G., Mbading-Mbading W., Willaume E., Souza A., Mbatchi B., Charpentier M.J.E. 2017. Seasonal and individual predictors of diet in a free-ranging population of mandrills. Ethology 123:600–613. Google Scholar

42.

Nuñez C.L., Froese G., Meier A.C., Beirne C., Depenthal J., Kim S., Mbélé A.E., Nordseth A., Poulsen J.R. 2019. Stronger together: comparing and integrating camera trap, visual, and dung survey data in tropical forest communities. Ecosphere 10:e02965. Google Scholar

43.

O'Connell A.F., Nichols J.D., Karanth K.U. 2011. Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. Tokyo: Springer. Google Scholar

44.

Palencia P., Vicente J., Barroso P., Barasona J.Á., Soriguer R.C., Acevedo P. 2019. Estimating day range from camera-trap data: the animals' behaviour as a key parameter. Journal of Zoology 309:182–190. Google Scholar

45.

Peterson L.M., Weckerly F.W. 2018. Social behavior and changes in foraging behavior in a gregarious ungulate. Journal of Mammalogy 99:1422–1429. Google Scholar

46.

Picardi S., Basille M., Peters W., Ponciano J.M., Boitani L., Cagnacci F. 2019. Movement responses of roe deer to hunting risk. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83:43–51. Google Scholar

47.

Pokallus J.W., Pauli J.N. 2016. Predation shapes the movement of a well-defended species, the North American porcupine, even when nutritionally stressed. Behavioral Ecology 27:470–475. Google Scholar

48.

R Core Team. 2020. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing.  www.R-project.org/. Accessed 31 October 2020. Google Scholar

49.

Reyna-Hurtado R., Teichroeb J.A., Bonnell T.R., Hernández-Sarabia R.U., Vickers S.M., Serio-Silva J.C., Sicotte P., Chapman C.A. 2018. Primates adjust movement strategies due to changing food availability. Behavioral Ecology 29:368–376. Google Scholar

50.

Rowcliffe J.M. 2019. Activity: animal activity statistics.  CRAN.R-project.org/package=activity. Accessed 22 February 2021. Google Scholar

51.

Rowcliffe J.M., Jansen P.A., Kays R., Kranstauber B., Carbone C., Pettorelli N. 2016. Wildlife speed cameras: measuring animal travel speed and day range using camera traps. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 2:84–94. Google Scholar

52.

Rowcliffe J.M., Kays R., Kranstauber B., Carbone C., Jansen P.A., Fisher D. 2014. Quantifying levels of animal activity using camera trap data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5:1170–1179. Google Scholar

53.

RStudio Team. 2021. RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Boston (MA): RStudio, PBC.  www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 22 February 2021. Google Scholar

54.

Saito M., Idani G. 2020. Giraffe diurnal recumbent behavior and habitat utilization in Katavi National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Zoology 312:183–192. Google Scholar

55.

Setchell J.M., Lee P.C., Wickings E.J., Dixson A.F. 2002. Reproductive parameters and maternal investment in mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). International Journal of Primatology 23:51–68. Google Scholar

56.

Setchell J.M., Wickings E.J. 2004. Social and seasonal influences on the reproductive cycle in female mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125:73–84. Google Scholar

57.

Sikes R.S., Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. 2016. 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. Journal of Mammalogy 97:663–688. Google Scholar

58.

Silva J.P., Catry I., Palmeirim J.M., Moreira F. 2015. Freezing heat: thermally imposed constraints on the daily activity patterns of a free-ranging grassland bird. Ecosphere 6:article119. Google Scholar

59.

Spitz D.B., Hebblewhite M., Stephenson T.R., German D.W. 2018. How plastic is migratory behavior? Quantifying elevational movement in a partially migratory alpine ungulate, the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 96:1385–1394. Google Scholar

60.

Steinbeiser C.M., Kioko J., Maresi A., Kaitilia R., Kiffner C. 2019. Relative abundance and activity patterns explain method-related differences in mammalian species richness estimates. Journal of Mammalogy 100:192–201. Google Scholar

61.

Tagg N., McCarthy M., Dieguez P., Bocksberger G., Willie J., Mundry R., Stewart F., Arandjelovic M., Widness J., Landsmann A. et al. 2018. Nocturnal activity in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for flexible sleeping patterns and insights into human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 166:510–529. Google Scholar

62.

Takenoshita Y., Ando C., Iwata Y., Yamagiwa J. 2008. Fruit phenology of the great ape habitat in the Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gabon. African Study Monographs 39:23–39. Google Scholar

63.

Terrien J., Perret M., Aujard F. 2011. Behavioral thermoregulation in mammals: a review. Frontiers in Bioscience 16:1428–1444. Google Scholar

64.

Thompson D.G., Swystun T., Cross J., Cross R., Chartrand D., Edge C.B. 2018. Fine- and coarse-scale movements and habitat use by wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) based on probabilistic modeling of radiotelemetry and GPS-telemetry data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 96:1153–1164. Google Scholar

65.

Tsuji Y. 2010. Regional, temporal, and interindividual variation in the feeding ecology of Japanese macaques. In: Nakagawa N., Nakamichi M., Sugiura H., editors. The Japanese macaques. Tokyo: Springer; p. 99–127. Google Scholar

66.

Tucker M.A., Bohning-Gaese K., Fagan W.F., Fryxell J.M., Van Moorter B., Alberts S.C., Ali A.H., Allen A.M., Attias N., Avgar T. et al. 2018. Moving in the Anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359:466–469. Google Scholar

67.

Wei W., He J., Zheng Q., He Y., Oosthuizen M.K., Zollner P. 2020. A comparison of density estimation methods in plateau pika populations in an alpine meadow ecosystem. Journal of Mammalogy 101:1091–1096. Google Scholar

68.

Weiss B., Laties V.G. 1961. Behavioral thermoregulation. Science 133:1338–1344. Google Scholar

69.

White E.C., Dikangadissi J.-T., Dimoto E., Karesh W.B., Kock M.D., Ona Abiaga N., Starkey R., Ukizintambara T., White L.J.T., Abernethy K.A. 2010. Home-range use by a large horde of wild Mandrillus sphinx. International Journal of Primatology 31:627–645. Google Scholar

70.

Wood S., Scheipl F. 2020. gamm4: generalized additive mixed models using ‘mgcv’ and ‘lme4’.  CRAN.R-project.org/package=gamm4. Accessed 22 February 2021. Google Scholar

71.

Zollner P., Butler S.M., Reid J.P., Slone D.H., Fletcher R.J., Haase C.G. 2020. Traveling to thermal refuges during stressful temperatures leads to foraging constraints in a central-place forager. Journal of Mammalogy 101:271–280. Google Scholar

72.

Zuur A., Ieno E.N., Walker N., Saveliev A.A., Smith G.M. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Mammalogists.
Shun Hongo, Yoshihiro Nakashima, Etienne François Akomo-Okoue, and Fred Loïque Mindonga-Nguelet "Seasonality in daily movement patterns of mandrills revealed by combining direct tracking and camera traps," Journal of Mammalogy 103(1), 159-168, (25 November 2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyab141
Received: 16 February 2021; Accepted: 1 November 2021; Published: 25 November 2021
JOURNAL ARTICLE
10 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
approche multi-méthode
day range
direct observation
distance journalière
forêt tropicale
GAMM
GAMM
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top