Sleeping site preferences in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella nigritus)

Abstract

The characteristics and availability of the sleeping sites used by a group of 27 tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella nigritus) were studied during 17 months at the Iguazú National Park, Argentina. We tested different hypotheses regarding possible ultimate causes of sleeping-site selection. Most sleeping sites were located in areas of tall, mature forest. Of the 34 sleeping sites the monkeys used during 203 nights, five were more frequently used than the others (more than 20 times each, constituting 67% of the nights). Four species of tree (Peltophorum dubium, Parapiptadenia rigida, Copaifera langsdorfii and Cordia trichotoma) were the most frequently used. They constituted 82% of all the trees used, though they represent only 12% of the trees within the monkeys' home range which had a diameter at breast height (DBH) > 48.16 cm (1 SD below the mean DBH of sleeping trees). The sleeping trees share a set of characteristics not found in other trees: they are tall emergent (mean height ± SD = 31.1± 5.2 m) with large DBH (78.5 ± 30.3 cm), they have large crown diameter (14± 5.5 m), and they have many horizontal branches and forks. Adult females usually slept with their kin and infants, while peripheral adult males sometimes slept alone in nearby trees. We reject parasite avoidance as an adaptive explanation for the pattern of sleeping site use. Our results and those from other studies suggest that predation avoidance is a predominant factor driving sleeping site preferences. The patterns of aggregation at night and the preference for trees with low probability of shedding branches suggest that social preferences and safety from falling during windy nights may also affect sleeping tree selection. The importance of other factors, such as seeking comfort and maintaining group cohesion, was not supported by our results. Other capuchin populations show different sleeping habits which can be explained by differences in forest structure and by demographic differences. Am. J. Primatol. 50:257–274, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.