Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 75, No. 2, 2004
Issue release date: March–April 2004 (March 2004)
Folia Primatol 2004;75:70–84

Microhabitat Preference and Vertical Use of Space by Patas Monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Relation to Predation Risk and Habitat Structure

Enstam K.L. · Isbell L.A.
Department of Anthropology, University of California at Davis, Davis, Calif., USA

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Habitat structure can be important in determining habitat preference of animals because it is often closely linked to factors that affect survival and reproduction, such as food availability and predation risk. Here we examine the ways in which microhabitat structure and predation risk affect the habitat preference of wild patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas). Patas monkeys in Kenya are typically restricted to Acacia drepanolobium habitat, but within our study group’s home range, there are two distinct microhabitats, one with taller trees (‘tall microhabitat’) and one with apparently perennially shorter trees (‘short microhabitat’). Examination of ranging behavior indicates that the patas monkeys preferred the tall microhabitat. In the tall microhabitat, focal animals climbed into trees that were significantly taller than average, indicating that they preferred tall trees. Female patas monkeys spent more time scanning from tall trees than from short trees and detected predators only from taller than average trees, based on alarm call data. Their use of tall trees may have decreased their predation risk by increasing their ability to detect predators. We found no evidence of increased food availability or reduced predator presence in the tall microhabitat that could contribute to the monkeys’ preference for the tall microhabitat.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Altmann SA, Altmann J (1970). Baboon Ecology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  2. Baldellou M, Henzi P (1992). Vigilance, predator detection and the presence of supernumerary males in vervet monkey troops. Animal Behaviour 43: 451–461.
  3. Bertram BCR (1978). Living in groups: Predators and prey. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds.), pp 64–96. Sunderland, Sinauer Associates.
  4. Carlson AA, Isbell LA (2001). Causes and consequences of single‐male and multi‐male mating in free‐ranging patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas). Animal Behaviour 62: 1047–1058.
  5. Chism J, Olson DK, Rowell TE (1983). Diurnal births and perinatal behavior among wild patas monkeys: Evidence of an adaptive pattern. International Journal of Primatology 4: 167–184.
  6. Chism J, Rowell, TE (1986). Mating and residence patterns of male patas monkeys. Ethology 72: 31–39.
  7. Chism J, Rowell TE (1988). The natural history of patas monkeys. In A Primate Radiation: Evolutionary Biology of the African Guenons (Gautier‐Hion A, Bourlière F, Gautier J‐P, Kingdon J, eds.), pp 412–438. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  8. Chism J, Rowell TE, Olson D (1984). Life history patterns of female patas monkeys. In Female Primates: Studies by Women Primatologists (Small MF, ed.), pp 175–190. New York, Liss.
  9. Cords M (1987). Forest guenons and patas monkeys: Male‐male competition in one‐male groups. In Primate Societies (Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT, eds.), pp 98–111. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  10. Cowlishaw G (1997a). Trade‐offs between foraging and predation risk determine habitat use in a desert baboon population. Animal Behaviour 53: 667–686.
  11. Cowlishaw G (1997b). Refuge use and predation risk in a desert baboon population. Animal Behaviour 54: 241–253.
  12. Cowlishaw G (1998). The role of vigilance in the survival and reproductive strategies of desert baboons. Behaviour 135: 431–452.
  13. Crook JH, Gartlan SJ (1966). On the evolution of primate societies. Nature 210: 1200–1203.
  14. Dunbar RIM (1996). Determinants of group size in primates: A general model. In Evolution and Social Behaviour: Patterns in Primates and Man. Proceedings of the British Academy (Runciman WG, Maynard‐Smith J, Dunbar RIM, eds.), pp 33–57. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  15. Enstam KL, Isbell LA (2002). Comparison of responses to alarm calls by patas (Erythrocebus patas) and vervet (Cercopithecus aethiops) monkeys in relation to habitat structure. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119: 3–14.
  16. Enstam KL, Isbell LA, de Maar TW (2002). Male demography, female mating behavior, and infanticide in wild patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas). International Journal of Primatology 23: 85–104.

    External Resources

  17. Gartlan JS (1974). Adaptive aspects of social structure in Erythrocebus patas. Proceedings from the Symposia of the 5th Congress of the International Primatological Society (Kondo S, Kawai M, Ehara M, Kawamura S, eds.), pp 161–171. Tokyo, Japan Science Press.
  18. Gautier‐Hion A, Gautier JP, Quris R (1981). Forest structure and fruit availability as complementary factors influencing habitat use by a troop of monkeys (Cercopithecus cephus). Revue d’Ecologie 35: 511–536.
  19. Hall KRL (1965). Behaviour and ecology of the wild patas monkey, Erythrocebus patas, in Uganda. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 148: 15–87.
  20. Hamilton W, Bulger J (1992). Facultative expression of behavioral differences between one‐male and multimale savanna baboon groups. American Journal of Primatology 28: 61–71.
  21. Harding RSO, Olson DK (1986). Patterns of mating among male patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Kenya. American Journal of Primatology 11: 343–358.
  22. Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (1998). An evaluation of the roles of predation rate and predation risk as selective pressures on primate grouping behaviour. Behaviour 135: 411–430.
  23. Hill RA, Lee PC (1998). Predation risk as an influence on group size in cercopithecoid primates: Implications for social structure. Journal of Zoology London 245: 447–456.
  24. Isbell LA (1994). Predation on primates: Ecological patterns and evolutionary consequences. Evolutionary Anthropology 3: 61–71.
  25. Isbell LA (1998). Diet for a small primate: Insectivory and gummivory in the (large) patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas pyrrhonotus). American Journal of Primatology 45: 381–398.
  26. Isbell LA, Enstam KL (2002). Predator (in)sensitive foraging in sympatric vervets (Cercopithecus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas): A test of ecological models of group dispersion. In Eat or Be Eaten: Predator Sensitive Foraging among Primates (Miller LE, ed.), pp 154–168. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  27. Kaplin BA (2001). Ranging behavior in two species of guenons (Cercopithecus lhoesti and C. mitis doggetti) in the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. International Journal of Primatology 22: 521–548.

    External Resources

  28. Madden D, Young TP (1992). Symbiotic ants as an alternative defense against giraffe herbivory in spinescent Acacia drepanolobium. Oecologia 91: 235–238.
  29. Martin P, Bateson P (1993). Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  30. Nakagawa N (1999). Differential habitat utilization by patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) and tantalus monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops tantalus) living sympatrically in northern Cameroon. American Journal of Primatology 49: 243–264.
  31. Napier PH (1981). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History) and Elsewhere in the British Isles, Part 2: Family Cercopithecidae, Subfamily Cercopithecinae. London, British Museum (Natural History).
  32. Ohsawa H, Inoue M, Takenaka O (1993). Mating strategy and reproductive success of male patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas). Primates 34: 533–544.
  33. Pruetz JD (1999). Socioecology of Adult Female Vervet (Chlorocebus aethiops) and Patas Monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Kenya: Food Availability, Feeding Competition, and Dominance Relationships. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.
  34. Pruetz JD, Isbell LA (2000). Correlations of food distribution and patch size with agonistic interactions in female vervets (Chlorocebus aethiops) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) living in simple habitats. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49: 38–47.
  35. Pulliam HR (1973). On the advantages of flocking. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38: 419–422.
  36. Rasa OAE (1986). Coordinated vigilance in dwarf mongoose family groups: The watchman’s song hypothesis and the costs of guarding. Ethology 71: 340–344.
  37. Rasmussen DR (1983). Correlates of patterns of range use of a troop of yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus). II. Spatial structure, cover density, food gathering, and individual behaviour patterns. Animal Behaviour 31: 834–856.
  38. Rowell TE (1988). The social system of guenons compared with baboons, macaques, and mangabeys. In A Primate Radiation: Evolutionary Biology of the African Guenons (Gautier‐Hion A, Bourlière F, Gautier JP, Kingdon J, eds.), pp 439–451. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  39. Stacey PB (1986). Group size and foraging efficiency in yellow baboons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 18: 175–187.
  40. Stanford CB (1995). The influence of chimpanzee predation on group size and anti‐predator behavior in red colobus monkeys. Animal Behaviour 49: 577–587.
  41. Struhsaker TT, Gartlan JS (1970). Observations on the behaviour and ecology of the patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas) in the Waza Reserve, Cameroon. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 161: 49–63.
  42. Treves A (1997). Vigilance and use of micro‐habitat in solitary rainforest animals. Mammalia 61: 511–525.
  43. Treves A (1999). Within‐group vigilance in red colobus and redtail monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 48: 113–126.
  44. van Schaik CP, van Noordwijk MA, Warsono B, Sutriono E (1983). Party size and early detection of predators in Sumatran forest primates. Primates 24: 211–221.
  45. Yasukawa K, Whittenberger LK, Nielsen TA (1992). Anti‐predator vigilance in the red‐winged blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceus: Do males act as sentinels? Animal Behaviour 43: 961–969.
  46. Young TP, Stubblefield C, Isbell LA (1997). Ants on swollen‐thorn acacias: Species coexistence in a simple system. Oecologia 109: 98–107.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50