10.5061/DRYAD.2280GB5RS
Ramananjato, Veronarindra
0000-0003-2398-3671
University of Antananarivo
Razafindratsima, Onja
0000-0003-1655-6647
University of California, Berkeley
Data from: Structure of microhabitats used by Microcebus rufus across a
heterogeneous landscape
Dryad
dataset
2021
FOS: Biological sciences
Microcebus
Primates
Tropical forests
Vegetation analysis
habitat
Madagascar
Idea Wild
https://ror.org/03078b858
24419-1
Idea Wild
https://ror.org/03078b858
2021-05-01T00:00:00Z
2021-05-01T00:00:00Z
en
659784 bytes
3
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Microhabitat preference among primates, which provides them with the niche
they need to survive, often conditions primate diversity, abundance, and
coexistence. Vegetation alteration and recovery have built heterogeneous
forest landscapes that may influence primates’ microhabitat preference. We
compared the diversity and size of trees/shrubs and the presence of lianas
in 132 sites where we captured the rufous mouse lemur (Microcebus rufus),
with that of 240 sites where we did not capture this species, to
investigate the aspects of microhabitat structure they prefer. We then
examined how this structural preference varies across a heterogeneous
landscape of forests with different disturbance levels. Overall,
microhabitats used by M. rufus differed significantly from unused ones in
densities of small size, understory, and midstory plants. Microcebus rufus
frequented microhabitats with significantly denser small- and medium-size
(DBH 2.5-10 cm) trees/shrubs without lianas in the primary forest and
small-size plants (DBH 2.5-4.9 cm) with one liana in other forest types.
Compared to the microhabitats they used in the primary forest, the
microhabitats in other forest types had lower densities of trees/shrubs
with lianas. Additionally, the secondary forests and forest fragments also
had significantly lower DBH. Although this variation in microhabitat use
may represent an opportunity for M. rufus to live in disturbed habitats,
it may expose them to additional threats, affecting their long-term
survival. These findings emphasize the need to examine potential changes
in microhabitat use among primates living in anthropogenic landscapes,
which could help optimize long-term conservation and management of
threatened primate species in heterogeneous landscapes.
This dataset was collected from vegetation survey. We established a 5 m x
5 m quadrat around each trap (540 quadrats in total) to survey vegetation
structure across sampling sites. In each quadrat, we measured the diameter
at breast height (DBH, ~1.30 m above ground) of all tree/shrub individuals
with a height ≥ 0.5 m and visually estimated their height. We identified
each individual using its vernacular name and referred to a local plant
database and the literature for their corresponding scientific names. We
recorded the number of lianas on each tree/shrub, if present, without
identifying them. In each quadrat, we also visually estimated the
percentage of the forest ground covered by all plants of < 0.5 m
high to determine the cover of the herbaceous layer. Using these data, we
describe the structure of microhabitats used and unused by M. rufus by
calculating 13 metrics of diversity and vertical structures for each
quadrat. “Used microhabitats” refer to locations where we captured M.
rufus individuals, while “unused microhabitats” refer to locations where
we did not capture M. rufus individuals. In addition to size classes and
herbaceous layer, we included the densities of trees with lianas as
structural variables because mouse lemurs may use them as an alternative
to small-branched trees/shrubs.