Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-6mkhv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-06T21:23:19.056Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Remote video-camera traps measure habitat use and competitive exclusion among sympatric chimpanzee, gorilla and elephant in Loango National Park, Gabon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

Josephine S. Head*
Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Martha M. Robbins
Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Roger Mundry
Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Loïc Makaga
Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Christophe Boesch
Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Primatology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
1Corresponding author. Email:


Species commonly exist in sympatry, yet ecological studies are often based on a single species approach while ignoring the impact of sympatric competitors. Over 13 mo we used 24 remote video-camera traps to monitor habitat use of sympatric chimpanzee, gorilla and elephant in four different habitat types in Loango National Park, Gabon. Habitat use by each species was predicted to vary according to seasonal changes in food availability and precipitation. Increased interspecific competition between the three species was expected at times of reduced resource availability, leading to exclusion of the inferior competitor. Supporting the predictions, species abundance per habitat showed seasonal variation: all three species responded positively to increased fruit availability in all habitats, but the response was only significant for gorilla in mature forest and elephant in coastal forest. Responses to rainfall varied, with the chimpanzee responding negatively to rainfall in swamp forest, the gorilla responding positively to rainfall in coastal and secondary forest, and the elephant responding positively to rainfall in mature forest. Elephant presence resulted in competitive exclusion of the apes under certain conditions: the chimpanzee was excluded by the elephant where fruit availability was low, whereas the gorilla was excluded by the elephant in areas of low herb density despite high fruit availability. Our results emphasize the value of applying a multi-species, longer-term approach to studying variation in habitat use among sympatric species and highlight the impact competitors can exert on one another's distribution.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



ALLEY, T. R. 1982. Competition theory, evolution and the concept of an ecological niche. Acta Biotheoretica 31:165179.Google Scholar
ARANDJELOVIC, M., HEAD, J., BOESCH, C., KUEHL, H., ROBBINS, M. M., MAISELS, F. & VIGILANT, L. 2010. Effective non-invasive genetic monitoring of multiple wild western gorilla groups. Biological Conservation 143:17801791.Google Scholar
BAAYEN, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 390 pp.Google Scholar
BALCOMB, S. R., CHAPMAN, C. A. & WRANGHAM, R. W. 2000. Relationship between chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) density and large fleshy-fruit tree density: conservation implications. American Journal of Primatology 51:197203.Google Scholar
BEGON, M., TOWNSEND, C. R. & HARPER, J. L. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. (Fourth edition). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 738 pp.Google Scholar
BIRCH, L. C. 1957. The meanings of competition. American Naturalist 91:518.Google Scholar
BLAKE, S. 2002. The ecology of forest elephant distribution and its implications for conservation. Ph.D. thesis, Dept of Zoology, University of Edinburgh. 307 pp.Google Scholar
BREUER, T., NDOUNDOU, M. & FISHLOCK, V. 2005. First observation of tool use in wild gorillas. PLoS Biology 3:e380.Google Scholar
CHAPMAN, C. A., CHAPMAN, L. A., WRANGHAM, R., HUNT, K., GEBO, D. & GARDNER, L. 1992. Estimators of fruit abundance of tropical trees. Biotropica 24:527531.Google Scholar
CONNELL, J. H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. American Naturalist 122:661696.Google Scholar
DOBSON, A. J. 2002. An introduction to Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton. 225 pp.Google Scholar
DORAN-SHEEHY, D., MONGO, P., LODWICK, J. & CONKLIN-BRITTAIN, N. L. 2009. Male and female western gorilla diet: preferred foods, use of fallback resources, and implications for ape versus old world monkey foraging strategies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140:727738.Google Scholar
ECCARD, J. A. & YLÖNEN, H. 2003. Interspecific competition in small rodents: from populations to individuals. Evolutionary Ecology 17:423440.Google Scholar
ERIKSSON, M. O. G. 1979. Competition between freshwater fish and goldeneyes Bucephala clangula (L.) for common prey. Oecologia 41:99107.Google Scholar
GAUSE, G. F. 1934. The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore. 163 pp.Google Scholar
GRANT, P. R. 1972. Interspecific competition among rodents. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:79106.Google Scholar
HANSEN, R. M. & UECKERT, D. N. 1970. Dietary similarity of some primary consumers. Ecology 51:640648.Google Scholar
HARDIN, G. 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:12921297.Google Scholar
HEAD, J. S., BOESCH, C., MAKAGA, L. & ROBBINS, M. M. 2011. Sympatric chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) in Loango National Park, Gabon: dietary composition, seasonality and inter-site comparisons. International Journal of Primatology 32:755775.Google Scholar
KREBS, C. J. 2009. Ecology. (Sixth edition). Pearson Education, London. 655 pp.Google Scholar
KURODA, S., NISHIHARA, T., SUZUKI, S. & OKO, R.A. 1996. Sympatric chimpanzees and gorillas in the Ndoki Forest, Congo. Pp. 7181 in McGrew, W., Marchant, L. & Nishida, T. (eds.). Great ape societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
LAMBERT, J. E. 2002. Resource switching and species coexistence in guenons: a community analysis of dietary flexibility. Pp. 309324 in Glenn, M. E. & Cords, M. (eds.). The guenons: diversity and adaptation in African monkeys. Kluwer Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
LONGEPIERRE, S., HAILEY, A. & GRENOT, C. 2001. Home range area in the tortoise Testudo hermanni in relation to habitat complexity: implications for conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:11311140.Google Scholar
MCCULLAGH, P. & NELDER, J. A. 2008. Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, London. 300 pp.Google Scholar
MCGREW, W. C. 1977. Socialization and object manipulation of wild chimpanzees. Pp. 261288 in Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. & Poirier, F. E. (eds.). Primate bio-social development. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
MITCHELL, B. D. & BANKS, P. B. 2005. Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence for competition from dietary and spatial overlaps. Austral Ecology 30:581591.Google Scholar
MORRIS, D. M. 1996. Coexistence of specialist and generalist rodents via habitat selection. Ecology 77:23522364.Google Scholar
PERSSON, L. 1985. Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? American Naturalist 126:261266.Google Scholar
RAZGOUR, O., KORINE, C. & SALTZ, D. 2011. Does interspecific competition drive patterns of habitat use in desert bat communities? Oecologia 167:493502.Google Scholar
ROGERS, M. E., ABERNATHY, K., MAGDALENA, B., CIPOLLETTA, C., DORAN, D., MCFARLAND, K., NISHIHARA, T., REMIS, M. & TUTIN, C. E. G. 2004. Western Gorilla Diet: a synthesis from six sites. American Journal of Primatology 64:173192.Google Scholar
SALE, P. F. 1974. Overlap in resource use, and interspecific competition. Oecologia 17:245256.Google Scholar
SCHOENER, T. W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Society of Naturalists 122:240285.Google Scholar
TUTIN, C. E. G. & FERNANDEZ, M. 1993. Composition of the diet of chimpanzees and comparisons with that of sympatric lowland gorillas in the Lopé reserve, Gabon. American Journal of Primatology 30:195211.Google Scholar
VENABLES, W. N. & RIPLEY, B. D. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. (Fourth edition). Springer Press, New York. 495 pp.Google Scholar
WIENS, J. A. 1977. On competition and variable environments. American Scientist 65:590597.Google Scholar
WHITE, L. J. T., TUTIN, C. E. G. & FERNANDEZ, M. 1994. Behavioural and dietary similarities of elephants and apes in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon: should elephants be re-classified as apes? Pp. 1927 in Thierry, B., Anderson, J. R., Roeder, J. J. & Herrenshmidt, N. (eds.). Current primatology Vol. 1: ecology and evolution. University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg.Google Scholar