Influence of Visitors on the Time Budget, Ranging and Strata Use of Lowe's Monkey (Cercopithecus lowei) at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana

© 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Open Access Influence of Visitors on the Time Budget, Ranging and Strata Use of Lowe’s Monkey (Cercopithecus lowei) at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana Núria Badiella-Giménez1, Bright Obeng Kankam2,3,*, and Llorenç Badiella4 1West African Primate Conservation Action, C/o Accra Zoo PO Box M239, Accra, Ghana. E-mail: [email protected] (Badiella-Giménez) 2Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (CSIR-FORIG), Kumasi, Ghana. *Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected] (Kankam). Tel: +233244519480. 3Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB., Canada. 4Servei d’Estadística Aplicada, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès 08193, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] (Badiella) Received 12 December 2020 / Accepted 6 June 2021 / Published 16 September 2021 Communicated by Teng-Chiu Lin Wildlife tourism could be a conservation tool; however, it may disrupt the natural behaviors of wild animals. We examined how wildlife tourism affects Lowe’s monkeys (Cercopithecus lowei) at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, central Ghana. We examined and compared the time budget, aggression patterns, home range size and strata use of two C. lowei groups—one with a high level of provisioning by visitors/ tour guides (HP group) versus one with a low level of provisioning by visitors/tour guides (LP group). We found evidence that the HP group fed less and rested more than the LP group. The HP group significantly increased the time spent feeding and decreased their time resting, but no significant differences were recorded for moving or socializing either in the presence of small or big groups of visitors (i.e., 1–10 visitors or > 10 visitors). In the presence of one to ten visitors, the HP group monkeys increased the use of ground by 22.10% and decreased the use of medium and high tree strata by 15.43% and 11.6%, respectively. Agonistic behaviors (i.e., threat, chase, and attack) were three times higher in the HP group (e.g., open-jawed gaze gesture or head-bobbing). In the presence of visitors, aggression in the HP group increased from 12.81% to 30.18%. The home range size of the C. lowei HP group was smaller (4.68 ha) compared to the LP group (14.25 ha) (i.e., 50.56% difference). The LP group spent significantly less time socializing and more time moving. They fed more on fruits and insects. On average, the daily travel of LP group was 0.58 km more than the HP group (i.e., 22.80% difference), and the former group also spent significantly more time in the mid strata of the canopy. Our results showed that continued provisioning of the monkeys with human foods is detrimental to their natural behavior of the monkeys and could have negative long-term effects on the conservation efforts for the species. Key words: Activity Pattern, Aggression, Cercopithecus lowei, Home Range, Strata, Wildlife Tourism. BACKGROUND Wildlife tourism—where leisure is mixed with education, nature conservation, and cultural awareness— is becoming increasingly popular in wild areas (Reynolds and Braithwaite 2001). Feeding wild animals is sometimes part of wildlife tourism and is often a popular tourist activity that may have a positive or negative impact on wild animals (Maréchal et al. 2016a). Two positive impacts could be income generation from the Citation: Badiella-Giménez N, Kankam BO, Badiella L. 2021. Influence of visitors on the time budget, ranging and strata use of Lowe’s Monkey (Cercopithecus lowei) at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana. Zool Stud 60:51. doi:10.6620/ZS.2021.60-51. Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) doi:10.6620/ZS.2021.60-51 1 © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan fees to support the site or local people (Orams 2002; Watermeyer et al. 2011), which improve local attitudes towards conservation, and the management of humanprimate interactions (Unwin and Smith 2010). Some of the negative consequences documented include environmental pollution, ecosystem degradation, shortor long-term changes in animal populations, and changes in community lifestyle in the surrounding area (Reynolds and Braithwaite 2001; Green and Giese 2004). Primate ranging patterns are influenced by several ecological and behavioral factors; for example, seasons, food availability, food distribution and quality, availability of water, group size, and sleeping and resting sites (Fashing 2001). Wildlife tourism and tourist provisioning may disrupt the natural behaviors of wildlife, reduce their health (Stockin et al. 2008; Maréchal et al. 2016b), and affect their distribution (Shannon et al. 2017). For example, howler monkeys at a Belizean archaeological site increased the use of ground strata when visitors were present, increasing predation and disease transmission risks (Grossberg et al. 2003); pygmy marmosets in Ecuadorian Amazonia reduced social play and vocalizations, and increased use of lower strata to avoid contact with humans (de la Torre et al. 2000); and rhesus macaques spent more time on human-modified areas than forest areas when provisioning was available on the Buxa Tiger Reserve, India (Sengupta and Radhakrishna 2018). Tourist feeding of wildlife is an important issue that needs attention, both at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) and elsewhere (Orams 2002). Deliberate feeding of the monkeys at the BFMS raises particular concerns because it may detrimentally affect the natural behavior of the monkeys; feeding also poses health risks (i.e., monkey bites, disease transfer) to the visitors and the monkeys alike. It has become a habit for tour guides in BFMS to feed Lowes monkeys during tours in an effort to allow visitors to see and interact closely with the monkeys. The provision of supplemental food to wildlife can affect the monkeys natural feeding and foraging behavior (Shannon et al. 2017). It affects the composition of the diet and alters the amount of food and the nutrients ingested (Wrangham 1974; Asquith 1989; McKinney 2011; Kreigenhofer 2017). It also has the potential to change the home range location and size (Boutin 1990; Sengupta and Radhakrishna 2018), affecting the ecosystem as well through changes in the ecoethology of the animals (Sengupta et al. 2015). There is currently a lack of information on C. lowei in relation to the effects of wildlife tourism on this species in their natural environment and even for other species, as such research is typically conducted in zoos (Chamove et al. 1988; Cook and Hosey 1995; Mallapur et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2013). The BFMS in central Ghana harbours two primates of conservation concern under the IUCN Red List of threatened species—the Cercopithecus lowei (Lowe’s monkey, vulnerable) and Colobus vellerosus (White-thighed colobus monkey, critically endangered) (Wiafe et al. 2019; Matsuda et al. 2020)—along with a nocturnal primate (Galago senegalensis) (Bearder, unpublished report). Killing Lowe’s monkeys is taboo and traditionally illegal in the BFMS (Fargey 1991). There are no interspecific competitions over resources in the foraging range of the monkeys because C. vellerosus naturally feed on leaves (Onderdonk and Chapman 2000; Saj and Sicotte 2007), C. lowei diet consists more fruits (Porter 2005), whereas Galago senegalensis is nocturnal and feeds predominantly on plant exudates and invertebrate (Nash et al. 2013). The monkey population has increased over the years (Kankam et al. 2010), since a hunting ban was enacted in the mid1970s (Saj et al. 2005). Fargey (1991) recorded 216 Lowe’s monkeys in 1990, and Kankam (1997) recorded 342 individuals in 1997 and more than 400 individuals in 2007 in BFMS and surrounding communities (Kankam B. O. unpublished data). The C. lowei’s diet is mainly composed of fruit, although it also consumes different proportions of invertebrates, vertebrates, flowers, leaves, seeds and gum (Enstam and Isbell 2007). Previous studies in the BFMS have indicated that some C. lowei groups may spend approximately 50% of their time feeding time eating garbage and cultivated foods (Fargey 1991; Porter 2005). The monkeys are generally found at the low and medium stratum (< 10 m) (Porter 2005). The group size ranges from 10 to over 27 individuals (Fargey 1991), and uses an area of 14.5 ha at the BFMS (Porter 2005). The monkey sanctuary, which doubles as a wildlife tourism centre, attracts visitors from Ghana and other parts of the world. Visitors’ numbers to BFMS have continued to increase, since the wildlife tourism project began, from about 150 visitors in 1990 (Fargey 1991) to more than 14,000 visitors in 2007 (Kankam et al. 2010). There has been a consistent increase in the number of visitors to BMFS to more than 18,000 in recent years (Badiella-Giménez 2015). Visitors to BFMS have the opportunity to enjoy close-up views of free-ranging primates, especially some of the Lowe’s monkeys who sometimes move around the villages looking for human food (Fargey 1991; Briggs 2011). This study examined how wildlife tourism affects the behavior of C. lowei monkeys in BFMS. Specifically, we compared the activity budgets and ranges of two groups of C. lowei (high-level provisioning group and low-level provisioning group). We documented and compared C. lowei agonistic page 2 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan behaviors, home range size, and canopy use within and between these groups. We hypothesized that the feeding of the monkeys by visitors or tour guides negatively influence the natural behaviors of the monkeys (Doenier et al. 1997). Specifically, we expected that the HP group would spend more time feeding on enrichment food provided by visitors compared to the LP C. lowei group. Second, we hypothesized that the presence of visitors would increase aggression towards withingroup conspecifics (Hsu et al. 2009), especially in a HP group due to the anticipation of a clumped, high-quality resource being available. Third, we hypothesized that a high level of provisioning C. lowei groups by visitors would reduce the home range size at BFMS. Finally, we hypothesized that the Lowe’s monkey HP group would be more likely to alter their use of forest canopy strata and more frequently use lower and medium strata in response to high tourist numbers and relative to the LP group (de la Torre et al. 2000). MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary is a community protected forest situated within the transition zone of Ghana (7°42'N, 1°41'W). The BFMS is approximately 496 ha, but only the core forest (i.e., about 190 ha) is protected from anthropogenic activities. The sanctuary is an isolated forest surrounded by villages associated with smaller forest fragments, ranging from 3.2 ha to 74.9 ha (Wong and Sicotte 2006; Kankam et al. 2010) (Fig. 1). The surrounding fragments—Senya (74.9 ha), Akrudwa kuma (34.2 ha), Bonte (33.5 ha), Bomini (31 ha), and Konkrompe (38.9 ha)—have four, seven, two, one and eight Lowe’s monkey individuals, respectively, in their remnant forests. The others—Busunya (54.1 ha), Tankor (6.8 ha), Akrudwa pinyin (3.2 ha), and Kwaase (4.9 ha)—have Fig. 1. Map of the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (black contour line demarcates the core area of the sanctuary), eight surrounding communities (polygons in colors), and the location of the study groups (green dot: high-level provisioned group; blue dot: low-level provisioned group). Grey lines represent vehicular roads. N page 3 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan no Lowe’s monkeys in their forests (Kankam B. O. unpublished data). A census conducted by Kankam in 2007 recorded 481 individuals in 36 groups in BFMS, and 22 individuals in five groups in the surrounding communities totalling 503 individuals in 41 groups (Kankam B. O. unpublished data). The sanctuary is also home to one nocturnal primate (Galago senegalensis), 375 species of butterflies (Larsen et al. 2009), and fruit bats. Medium to large mammals are rarely present due to hunting (Kankam et al. 2010). The vegetation is characterized by forest and savannah woodland vegetation with patches of undisturbed forest (Swaine et al. 1976; Hall and Swaine 1981; Kankam et al. 2010; Kankam and Sicotte 2013). There is also regenerating farmland and disturbed forest around the edges (Saj et al. 2005). Study groups This study compared one group of C. lowei (Fig. 2) that consistently receives a high level of provisioning by visitors/tour guides as they range within the interconnecting trails in the sanctuary (referred hereinafter, for simplicity, as the high-level provisioning group [HP group]), and another group that had low levels of provisioning by visitors/tour guides and do not range within the tourist trails in the sanctuary (referred hereinafter, for simplicity, as the LP group). The HP group consisted of 32 individuals in total—one adult male, 13 non-lactating females, two adult females with infants, and 16 young animals. Their range is divided by wide routes where inhabitants of Boabeng come and go from their farms, and these paths are also used for tour guides to easily find the monkeys during their tours. This group spent most of their time around the paths used by tour guides in the sanctuary, where they frequently get hand-fed almost daily by visitors and tour guides with a variety of foods (e.g., banana, apple, coconut, bread, biscuits, peanuts). The group occasionally steals foodstuffs from farmers on their way home from the farm, and also enter people’s homes to take cultivated foods such as yam, cassava, corn, palm nuts, and pineapple. The group also forage around corn milling machines (Fig. 3) and refuse dump areas. Herein visitors are understood as people (international or national) who travel to BFMS and tour the area, whether they interact (i.e., feeding or calling) with the monkeys or not (i.e., watching or photographing). The LP group was made up of 34 individuals— two adult males, seven non-lactating females, four females with infants, and 21 young animals. This group does not come close to humans (visitors or tour guides) as their daily range is not close to the tourist feeding paths, they had less interaction with humans, and thus a four-week habituation period was needed to start data collection. There was no fecundity or mortality in either of the two groups during the study period. It took four weeks to habituate the LP study group. The habituation consisted of daily walks through the LP group range, progressively increasing the proximity to the group to finally follow them from a distance (i.e., 30–50 m) without the group fleeing or moving deeper into the forest. They fed largely on natural foods, and eventually supplemented their diet with cultivated foods (e.g., yam, cassava, corn) from the farmer’s barns closer to the edge of the forest during the farming season. The group were not provisioned by visitors or tour guides during this study. Both monkey groups traversed the core forest where the vegetation consisted of open and closed forest and savannah woodland, although there was no overlap between their ranges. The two groups were not seen interact with other C. lowei groups at the site during the study period. Data collection Research was conducted from January to March 2014 during the dry season and from May to July 2014 during the wet season to minimize seasonal bias, as monkeys’ behavioral patterns vary throughout the year as a consequence of unstable food availability between seasons (Schubert 2011). The study was conducted in the core Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (Boabeng and Fiema communities), and did not include the entire Fig. 2. Cercopithecus lowei (adult female). page 4 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan sanctuary with the associated surrounding communities forests. The behavioral data were obtained through daily observations from dawn to dusk (i.e., ~ 0600 h to 1800 h). Each period of study (i.e., dry and wet season), 20 full day follows per group were obtained, accounting for a total of 960 hours of observation. Each day, the data collecting period was blocked into two 6-hour sessions (i.e., 0600–1200 h and 1200–1800 h) to allow two researchers to alternate between morning and afternoon sessions, and HP/LP group follows were alternated weekly. An inter-observer reliability test was done before starting the study and during it. Observers showed scores above 90% agreement. Prior to following a focal group, the group was followed in the evening until they were settled in their sleeping tree so that the next day they could be located at sunrise. The HP and LP groups were distinguished by identifying at least seven individuals within the groups without a doubt (Table 1). To ensure that the same group was selected for the study daily, it was essential to identify at least three individuals in the group before starting observations. The study adopted an age-sex classification (Table 2) as defined and used by Porter (2005). To record the behaviors of the monkeys, successions of 15-minute scan samplings and 10-minute agonism-focal samplings were performed (Altmann 1974). The following information was collected during scans—time, age and sex of the animal sampled; activity in which the animal was engaged at the moment of the scan (categories are described on Fig. 3. Cercopithecus lowei high-level provisioned group being fed by a group of tourists in the forest (top); foraging around corn milling machine (bottom) in Boabeng community. page 5 of 17 Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Table 3); the canopy level of the tree (stratum) where the monkeys were located; and the number of visitors in proximity (within 20 m) to the focal group. Four stratum categories were described: Ground, at least two limbs of the animal are on the forest floor; Low, when both limbs are above the ground but not higher than 3 m; Medium, the animal is between three and ten metres above ground level; and High, when the animal is more than 10 m above ground level (Porter 2005). Age-sex class was applied as defined and used by Porter (2005). For each group, five individuals were chosen randomly for each scan (i.e., select an individual within a group by chance and note all behaviors of interest for a given period). The scans were done from the right to left of the group in an interval of no more than 5 minutes; one lasted for > 5 minutes and was not considered in the data analysis. Efforts were also made not to scan individuals twice consecutively in order to have a better representation of all individuals in the group. Only activities lasting a minimum of 5 seconds without interruption (i.e., without the animal changing to another activity) were recorded. The scan sampling method was used to assess the approximate percentage of time that Lowe’s monkeys spent for each activity. During feeding, food items eaten (i.e., leaf, fruit, seed, flower, stem, or insects) were recorded, which also included human-food types (e.g., corn, banana, groundnut, pineapple, yam, cassava, coconut). Agonistic behaviors were recorded between scans during the 10-minute agonism-focal sampling. Agonistic acts are event behaviors, unlikely to be recorded in scans; we therefore needed to do agonism Table 1. Identity of some individuals within the High-level provisioning group and Low-level provisioning group in the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary Group Name Age-Sex Category Characteristics HP group Spotty Adult female with infant - Normally holding infant - One white spot on each side of its nose Alfa Adult male - Bigger than females - Big scar on its right leg - Slim face compared to other males Lisi Adult female - Short tail - Many spots in its face Torta Adult female - Tail ending in a hook-shaped Zig-zag Adult female - Tail shaped with light zigzag Aye Adult female - Wart on its right eye Pequito Immature animal - Warts on its nose and eyes LP group Big Adult male - Big body size Peke Adult male - Small head - Small body Turnhead Adult female - Head turned to the right side Coil Adult female - Coiled tail Goofie Adult female - Puffy tail Blanki Adult female - Black nipples Pirate Adult female - Only had one eye Baby Adult female - Smallest female Table 2. Criteria used for age-sex identification in C. lowei (Porter 2005) Age-Sex Categories Description Adult Female Pendulous, elongated nipples (due to nursing) Breast area often enlarged Adult Male Enlarged, fully descended, blue-colored testes Approximately 30-40% larger than most adult females Adult Female with Infant An adult female with infant clinging and/or suckling Immature animal Immature females: small, short nipples Immature males: small testes located close to the body page 6 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan focals to get accurate data on agonism rates in each group. Once the scan was over, we began a focalanimal sample on an adult animal. The following data was collected in each 10-minute agonism-focal sample – observation time, age-sex class of the animal sampled; time when an agonistic behavior started and ended; the actor and recipient of the agonistic action; and if visitors were in close proximity (i.e., within 20 m) and interacting with the focal animal (i.e., offering food, calling, or photographing). The next focal individual was chosen as the closest adult that was on sight and had not been sampled during the two previous scans. If no adult animal was visible or if the sighting had already been recorded, the focal sampling was skipped for that interval. Agonism focals were discarded if the subject moved out of the visibility area for more than 3 minutes. The agonistic categories recorded were chase (when one individual follows another involving one or more gesticulations and ending with any violent or submissive outcome), threat (any aggressive sign from one animal towards the other, including staring with tense body, open-jawed gaze gesture or head-bobbing), and attack (when two individuals were mutually hitting, grabbing or biting). Full day follows (i.e., 0600 h to 1800 h) were also used to measure the daily path length (Radhakrishna and Singh 2002) and daily distance travelled (Kaplin 2001). The area traversed by the study groups during the routine daily activities (Kaplin 2001) was mapped with a Garmin 60CS Global Positioning System (GPS). The location of the focal group (distance travel) was recorded every 30 minutes by standing at the approximated centre point of the focal group with a GPS with a single digit as an acceptable error margin. Statistical analyses The number of behavior occurrences collected during scans was 9,646 and 10,118 for the HP group and LP group, respectively (totalling N = 19,764). After cleaning the database, the number of scan observations used for the analysis was 8,732 for the HP group and 9,293 for the LP group (N = 18,025). The primary behavioral analyses and the evaluation of the influence of explanatory variables were carried out using Generalized Linear Models (for percentages or counts), in which the date were considered as a random factor. In order to run these analyses, it was assumed that the selection of subjects was random because they were drawn from larger groups to make the sample more representative and less biased. A model was run for each behavior in the activity budget (scans data), and another for each agonistic behavior (agonism-focal data). The response variables considered for each independent behavior were feeding, resting, moving, or socializing, while those for each agonistic behavior were threats, attacks, chases, or all actions. The explanatory variables considered for both models were the focal group, visitors’ numbers, age and sex of the monkeys (i.e., adult male, adult females, adult females with infant and juveniles), time of the day, and weather conditions. The aggregated data for each hour were used as an experimental unit. The measurements for agonistic behavior were aggregated and analysed at a day level due to the small number of aggressive behaviors. A Chi-square test was used to analyse the differences in diet between within the two monkey groups. The Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Differences) was carried out to find which of the groups differed in variance. Daily-journey length (distance travelled per day) was estimated from the distance covered from the previous sleeping site (with 30 minutes GPS points) to where the group ended up sleeping that day (Muroyama et al. 2000). Home ranges were generated and estimated from the locations recorded with the GPS device using the Kernel Density Table 3. Ethogram (Porter 2005) Ethogram behavior Description Feed Included feeding, food handling and foraging Foraging included all search behavior, such as - Scanning substrates i.e., leaves, bark, etc. (or the refuse deposit) for food - Handling leaves to search for plant or prey foods - Moving as it searched for food items Feeding from cheek pouches while sitting Rest Animal was stationary in a standing, sitting or lying position No chewing (i.e., feeding) or socializing was occurring Move Included all possible ways an animal might move through the forest, such as walking, running, swinging, jumping, etc. Social Affiliated and agonistic behaviors included displacements, chasing, biting, grabbing, or any other aggressive behavior, all of which occurred in an agonistic context (distinct from a play context) page 7 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Estimation method (Laver and Kelly 2008). The area of the monkey’s home range was calculated using the Continuous-Time Movement Modelling (ctmm) R package. The daily distances travelled and speeds were calculated using the software R (version 3.1). A total of 1621 points were used for the analysis, 651 for HP group and 970 for LP group. A t-test was used to compare the daily distance travelled between the HP and LP groups. All other statistical analyses were run with the software SAS System version 9.3 and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 unless stated otherwise. RESULTS General activity pattern The HP group spent on average 33.74% of their time resting, followed by moving (28.06%), feeding (24.87%) and socializing (13.33%) (i.e., Rest > Move > Feed > Social). The LP group showed similar results in their activity budget: time resting (36.16%), moving (30.22%), feeding (29.62%) and socializing (4.00%) (Fig. 4). Results showed a significant reduction in movement in the HP group (d.f. = 76, F = 15.19, p < 0.001), especially in the afternoon across age-sex categories and increased socializing throughout the day (d.f. = 76, F = 42.56, p < 0.001). Rest and feed did not show significant differences between groups (rest: d.f. = 76, F = 0.95, p = 0.333; feed: d.f. = 76, F = 2.44, p = 0.122); however, the HP group significantly fed less and rest more than the LP group (d.f. = 17907, F = 4.24, p < 0.001). Females in the HP group also significantly fed less (d.f. = 17907, F = 9.03, p = 0.003) and rested more (d.f. = 17907, F = 6.64, p = 0.010); whereas females with infants also spent less time feeding in the HP group than those in the LP group (d.f. = 17907, F = 15.66, p < 0.001). Activity patterns in the presence of visitors In the presence of visitors, the HP group significantly increased the time spent feeding (d.f. = 8672, F = 27.83, p < 0.001), and significantly decreased their time resting (d.f. = 8672, F = 5.65, p < 0.001). No significant differences were recorded for moving (d.f. = 8672, F = 2.22, p = 0.109), and socializing (d.f. = 8672, F = 2.27, p = 0.103), either in the presence of small (i.e., 1–10 visitors) or big groups of visitors (i.e., > 10 visitors). Diet A total of 4,924 feeding observations were made: 2,173 feeding observations for the HP group and 2,751 feeding observations for the LP group. There was a significant difference in diet between the two groups (χ2 = 566.34, p < 0.001). Post-hoc Tukey HSD test showed a significant difference between combinations of food items except for water (Tukey’s test: p < 0.001; Fig. 4. Comparison of mean proportion of scans allocated to feeding, moving, resting, and social activity between a group high-level provisioning group (High-level provisioning group – light grey) and a low-level provisioning group of C. lowei (Low-level provisioning group – dark grey). (Error bars indicate SE; * significant differences at p < 0.05). page 8 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Table 4). The LP group fed more on fruits (24.2%) and insects (44.9%), whereas the HP group largely (24.3%) depended on human food (i.e., banana, corn, apple, pineapple, coconut, mango, palm nuts, peanuts, yam and cassava) and insects (33.10%) (Table 4). Agonistic behaviour The rate of aggression for both groups was low, both when visitors were present and absent. For overall actions (i.e., threat, chase, and attack), there was a significant difference between groups (d.f. = 45, F = 26.00; p < 0.001). For the HP group, 3.5% of the events during the overall agonism-focal time were agonistic behaviors, the most of which were threats, followed by chases and attacks. Threats were significantly more frequent (d.f. = 45, F = 17.18, p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between them and attacks (d.f. = 45, F = 0.00, p = 0.973) or chases (d.f. = 45, F = 2.01, p = 0.163). The LP group showed agonistic behavior 1.15% of the sampled time; chasing was the most common, followed by threats and attacks. Visitor’s presence and aggressions Aggressive behaviors of the HP group significantly increased when visitors were around (d.f. = 19, F = 11.87, p < 0.001). Larger visitors’ numbers increased aggression even more. The percentage of aggressive behavior was 12.81% when no visitors were around; however, this increased to 30.18% when one to fifty visitors were present. Where more than 50 visitors were present, the aggression rate increased to 57.01%. No significant differences were found for any specific agonistic behavior (i.e., threats, attacks, chases) when analysed separately. Daily distance travelled and home range The C. lowei HP group travelled significantly less (d.f. = 68, F = 51.17, p < 0.001), 0.88 km daily on average, and had a smaller home range size (4.68 ha) (Fig. 5). They spent most of their time in and at the edge of the village raiding people’s houses for human food (e.g., yam, cassava, corn, palm nuts, pineapple) and being around visitors or tourists when they were present. Their home range varied in size during the two periods: during the dry season, their home range was bigger (4.99 ha) than during the wet season (4.36 ha) (Fig. 5). The LP group travelled 1.4 km daily on average and their home range was relatively bigger (14.25 ha) (Fig. 4). They spent most of their time in the forested area, but they also moved around a few human settlements (i.e., houses, church, roadside). Similar to the HP group, the LP group’s home range was bigger during the dry season (17.34 ha) and smaller during the wet season (11.16 ha) (Fig. 5). Both the C. lowei HP and LP groups had little home range overlap with neighbouring groups. Overall strata use Generally, the C. lowei HP group spent significantly more time in the medium strata (d.f. = 76, F = 7.60, p = 0.007) than the C. lowei LP group (Fig. 6). However, the time spent in the high, low, and ground strata was not significantly different between groups (ground: d.f. = 76, F = 0.33, p = 0.567; low: d.f. = 76, F = 2.59, p = 0.112; high: d.f. = 76, F = 2.05, p = 0.157). Specifically, we found significant differences in the use of each stratum between groups depending on the time of the day (ground: d.f. = 76, F = 4.24, p < 0.001; low: d.f. = 76, F = 6.57, p < 0.001; medium: d.f. = 76, Table 4. Percentage of food eaten by groups with high and low levels provisioning by visitors at BFMS. Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests showed a significant difference between combination of food items except for water. The last column shows the level of significance (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01 and ***: p < 0.001) Item eaten High-level provisioning group (%) Low-level provisioning group (%) P value Flowers 1.80 0.91 ** Fruit 13.17 24.23 *** Human food 24.26 10.39 *** Insects 33.10 44.93 *** Unknown*18.37 15.15 *** Seeds 0.09 3.60 *** Stems 1.84 0.36 *** Water 0.32 0.44 0.629 *Unknown food refers to items that were eaten by the monkeys but the exact nature could not be determined either due to its small size or poor visibility. page 9 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Maréchal L, MacLarnon A, Majolo B, Semple S. 2016b. Primates’ behavioural responses to tourists: evidence for a tradeoff between potential risks and benefits. Sci Rep 6:32465. doi:10.1038/srep32465. Maréchal L, Semple S, Majolo B, MacLarnon A. 2016a. Assessing the effects of tourist provisioning on the health of wild barbary macaques in Morocco. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0155920. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0155920. Marsh CW, John AD, Ayres JM. 1987. Effects of habitat disturbance on rain forest primates. In: Marsh CW, Mittermeier RA (eds) Primate conservation in the tropical rain forest, Vol 9. Alan R. INC., New York, pp. 83–107. Matheson MD, Sheeran LK, Li J-H, Wagner RS. 2006. Tourist impact on tibetan macaques. Anthrozoös 19(2):158–168. doi:10.2752/089279306785593810. Matsuda Goodwin R, Gonedelé Bi S, Nobimè G, Koné I, Osei D, Segniagbeto G, Oates JF. 2020. Colobus vellerosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T5146A169472127. Accessed 18 Oct. 2020. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS. T5146A169472127.en. Matsuda I, Akiyama Y, Tuuga A, Bernard H, Clauss M. 2014. Daily feeding rhythm in proboscis monkeys: a preliminary comparison with other non-human primates. Primates; J primatol 55:313– 326. doi:10.1007/s10329-014-0407-5. Matsuda I, Tuuga A, Higashi S. 2009. Ranging behavior of proboscis monkeys in a riverine forest with special reference to ranging in inland forest. Int J Primatol 30:313–325. doi:10.1007/s10764009-9344-3. McGraw WS. 1996. Cercopithecid locomotion, support use, and support availability in the Tai Forest, Ivory Coast. Am J Phys Anthropol 100:507–522. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10968644(199608)100:4<507::AID-AJPA5>3.0.CO;2-N. McKinney T. 2011. The effects of provisioning and crop-raiding on the diet and foraging activities of human-commensal whitefaced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). Am J Primatol 73:439–448. doi:10.1002/ajp.20919. Mekonnen A, Fashing PJ, Sargis EJ, Venkataraman VV, Bekele A, Hernandez-Aguilar RA, Rueness EK, Stenseth, NC. 2018. Flexibility in positional behaviour, strata use, and substrate utilization among bale monkeys (Chlorocebus djamdjamensis) in response to habitat fragmentation and degradation. Am J Primatol 80:e22760. doi:10.1002/ajp.22760. Muroyama Y, Imae H, Okuda K. 2000. Radio tracking of a male Japanese macaque emigrated from its group. Primates 41:351– 356. doi:10.1007/BF02557604. Nash LT, Zimmermann E, Butynski TM. 2013. Galago senegalensis northern lesser galago. Bloomsbury, London, UK. Onderdonk DA, Chapman CA. 2000. Coping with forest fragmentation: the primates of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Int J Primatol 21:587–611. doi:10.1023/A:1005509119693. Orams MB. 2002. Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tour Manag 23:281–293. doi:10.1016/ S0261-5177(01)00080-2. Peignot P, Fontaine B, Wickings EJ. 1999. Habitat exploitation, diet and some data on reproductive behaviour in a semiranging colony of Cercopithecus Ihoesti solatus, a guenon species recently discovered in Gabon. Folia Primatol 70:29–36. doi:10.1159/000021672. Porter ND. 2005. Diet, activity budget and ranging behaviour in Lowe’s guenon (Cercopithecus campbelli lowei) in Ghana. Dessertation, University of Calgary. Radford L, Alexanter S, Waters S. 2017. On the rocks: using discourse analysis to examine relationships between Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) and people on Gibraltar. Folia Primatol 89:30–44. doi:10.1159/000485125. Radhakrishna S, Singh M. 2002. Home range and pattern in the slender loris (Loris tardigradus lydekkerianus). Primates 43:237–248. doi:10.1007/BF02373846. Reynolds PC, Braithwaite D. 2001. Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tour Manag 22:31–42. doi:10.1016/S02615177(00)00018-2. Saj TL, Sicotte P. 2007. Predicting the competitive regime of female Colobus vellerosus from the distribution of food resources. Int J Primatol 28:315–336. doi:10.1007/s10764-007-9124-x. Saj TL, Sicotte P, Paterson JD. 1999. Influence of human food consumption on the time budget of vervets. Int J Primatol 20(6):977–994. doi:10.1023/A:1020886820759. Saj TL, Teichroeb JA, Sicotte P. 2005. The population status and habitat quality of the ursine colobus (Colobus vellerosus) at Boabeng-Fiema, Ghana. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J (eds) Commensalism and conflict: the human-primate interface American Primatological Society Publishing, Norman, pp. 350– 375. Schubert RL. 2011. The conservative nature of primate positional behavior: Testing for locomotor and postural variation in Colobus vellerosus and Cercopithecus campbelli lowei at Boabeng‐Fiema monkey sanctuary, Ghana. Dessertation, Ohio State University. Sengupta A, McConkey KR, Sindhu Radhakrishna S. 2015. Primates, provisioning and plants: impacts of human cultural behaviours on primate ecological functions. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0140961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140961. Sengupta A, Radhakrishna S. 2018. The hand that feeds the monkey: mutual influence of humans and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) in the context of provisioning. Int J Primatol 39:817– 830. doi:10.1007/s10764-018-0014-1. Shannon G, Larson CL, Reed SE, Crooks KR, Angeloni LM. 2017. Ecological consequences of ecotourism on wildlife populations and communities. In: Blumstein DT, Geffroy B, Samia DS, Bessa E (eds) Ecotourism’s promise and peril. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 29–46. Siemers BM. 2000. Seasonal variation in food resources and forest strata use by brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in a disturbed forest fragment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:181–184. doi:10.1159/000021739. Southwick CH, Siddiqi MF, Farooqui MY, Pal BC. 1976. Effects of artificial feeding on aggressive behaviour on Rhesus macaques in India. Anim Behav 24:11–15. doi:10.1016/s00033472(76)80093-0. Stevens JG, Thyssen A, Laevens H, Vervaecke H. 2013. The influence of zoo visitor numbers on the behaviour of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). J Zoo Aquar Res 1(1):31–34. doi:10.19227/jzar. v1i1.20. Stockin KA, Lusseau D, Binedell V, Wiseman N, Orams MB. 2008. Tourism affects the behavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355:287–295. doi:10.3354/meps07386. Swaine MD, Hall JB, Lock JM. 1976. The forest-savanna boundary in west-central Ghana. Ghana J Sci 16:35–52. Terborgh J. 1983. Five new world primates: a study in comparative ecology. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Unwin T, Smith A. 2010. Behavioral differences between provisioned and non-provisioned Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Anthrozoös 23:109–118. doi:10.2752/17530371 0X12682332909855. Wallace RB. 2001. Diurnal activity budgets of black spider monkeys, Ateles chamek, in a southern Amazonian tropical forest. Neotrop Primates 9(3):101–107. Wallace RB. 2008. Factors influencing spider monkey habitat use and ranging patterns. In: Campbell CJ (ed) Spider monkeys: page 16 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021) © 2021 Academia Sinica, Taiwan behavior, ecology and evolution of the genus Ateles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 138–154. Watermeyer J, Beverley G, Marnewick K. 2011. Investigating status, distribution and threats to cheetahs and African wild dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park. Unpublished report to the Endangered Wildlife Trust. Wiafe E, Oates JF, Gonedelé BS, Koné I, Matsuda GR, Osei D. 2019. Cercopithecus lowei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T136931A92373680. Accessed 18 May 2020. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T136931A92373680.en. Wong SN, Sicotte P. 2006. Population size and sensity of Colobus vellerosus at the Boabeng-Fiema monkey sanctuary and surrounding forest fragments in Ghana. Am J Prim 68:465–476. doi:10.1002/ajp.20242. Wrangham RW. 1974. Artificial feeding of chimpanzees and baboons in their natural habitat. Anim Behav 22:83–93. doi:10.1016/ S0003-3472(74)80056-4. page 17 of 17Zoological Studies 60:51 (2021)