Electronic supplementary material
High variability in patterns of population decline: the importance of local processes in species extinctions
Guy Cowlishaw, Richard A. Pettifor and Nick J. B. Isaac
Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
Corresponding author: Guy Cowlishaw ()
1
Dataset S1: Response ratio data.
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Alouatta belzebul / Gorupi / Intensely logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 2.2 / 11.7 / 0.188 / 2 / 50 / [1]
Alouatta belzebul / Gorupi / Lightly logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 2.3 / 11.7 / 0.197 / 2 / 10 / [1]
Alouatta belzebul / Remansinho / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0.42* / 2.3 / 0.183 / 1 / 60 / [1]
Alouatta belzebul / Tapajos / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 0.68 / 1.17 / 0.581 / 10 / . / [2]
Alouatta palliata / Santa Rosa / H vs N / ind/sqkm / 85.87 / 32.88 / 2.612 / 50 / . / [3]
Alouatta palliata / Santa Rosa / I vs N / ind/sqkm / 44.29 / 32.88 / 1.347 / 50 / . / [3]
Alouatta palliata / Santa Rosa / J vs N / ind/sqkm / 63.04 / 32.88 / 1.917 / 50 / . / [3]
Alouatta palliata / Santa Rosa / K vs N / ind/sqkm / 27.17 / 32.88 / 0.826 / 50 / . / [3]
Alouatta palliata / Santa Rosa / L vs N / ind/sqkm / 81.25 / 32.88 / 2.471 / 50 / . / [3]
Alouatta seniculus / lower Rio Japura / Vila Sao Pedro vs Lago Teiu / grps/sqkm / 10.7 / 3.2 / 3.344 / . / . / [4]
Alouatta seniculus / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 0.2 / 0.9 / 0.222 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Aotus azarae / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 22 / 8.5 / 2.588 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Ateles belzebuth / Tapajos / logged vs high forest / grps/10km / 0 / 1.36 / 0 / 10 / . / [2]
Ateles geoffroyi / Santa Rosa / H vs N / ind/sqkm / 5.09 / 46.03 / 0.111 / 50 / . / [3]
Ateles geoffroyi / Santa Rosa / I vs N / ind/sqkm / 6.31 / 46.03 / 0.137 / 50 / . / [3]
Ateles geoffroyi / Santa Rosa / J vs N / ind/sqkm / 14.87 / 46.03 / 0.323 / 50 / . / [3]
Ateles geoffroyi / Santa Rosa / K vs N / ind/sqkm / 7.74 / 46.03 / 0.168 / 50 / . / [3]
Ateles geoffroyi / Santa Rosa / L vs N / ind/sqkm / 1.83 / 46.03 / 0.04 / 50 / . / [3]
Ateles paniscus / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 1.1 / 1.3 / 0.846 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Ateles paniscus / Tapajos / logged vs high forest / grps/10km / 0 / 1.13 / 0 / 10 / . / [2]
Cacajao calvus / lower Rio Japura / Vila Sao Pedro vs Lago Teiu / grps/sqkm / 0.6 / 0.4 / 1.5 / . / . / [4]
Callicebus cupreus / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 1.2 / 0.3 / 4 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Callicebus torquatus / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 3.7 / 2.5 / 1.48 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Cebus albifrons / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 31 / 14 / 2.214 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Cebus apella / Gorupi / Intensely logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 0 / 1.8 / 0 / 2 / 50 / [1]
Cebus apella / Gorupi / Lightly logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 0.5 / 1.8 / 0.278 / 2 / 10 / [1]
Cebus apella / lower Rio Japura / Vila Sao Pedro vs Lago Teiu / grps/sqkm / 0.6 / 1.1 / 0.545 / . / . / [4]
Cebus apella / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 32 / 11.5 / 2.783 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Cebus apella / Remansinho / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 2.4 / 2.3 / 1.043 / 1 / 60 / [1]
Cebus apella / Tapajos / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 4.77 / 2.05 / 2.327 / 10 / . / [2]
Cebus capucinus / Santa Rosa / H vs N / ind/sqkm / 31.66 / 61.12 / 0.518 / 50 / . / [3]
Cebus capucinus / Santa Rosa / I vs N / ind/sqkm / 5.61 / 61.12 / 0.092 / 50 / . / [3]
Cebus capucinus / Santa Rosa / J vs N / ind/sqkm / 27.66 / 61.12 / 0.452 / 50 / . / [3]
Cebus capucinus / Santa Rosa / K vs N / ind/sqkm / 21.64 / 61.12 / 0.354 / 50 / . / [3]
Cebus capucinus / Santa Rosa / L vs N / ind/sqkm / 17.03 / 61.12 / 0.279 / 50 / . / [3]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 0.3 / 1.5 / 0.2 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 0.15 / 0.97 / 0.155 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 13.91 / 17.78 / 0.782 / 10.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 32.54 / 19.32 / 1.684 / 26.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 2.97 / 17.78 / 0.167 / 11.5 / 45 / [8]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 9.57 / 19.32 / 0.495 / 27.5 / 45 / [8]
Cercocebus albigena / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.83 / 0 / 12 / . / [9]
Cercocebus albigena / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 8.6 / 7.2 / 1.194 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Cercocebus albigena / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 2.7 / 7.2 / 0.375 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Cercocebus albigena / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 9.5 / 7.2 / 1.319 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Cercocebus torquatus / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 0.2 / 0.3 / 0.667 / 2 / . / [1]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / B1 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 70.2 / 11.7 / 6 / 7.5 / 38.4 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / B4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 39.3 / 11.7 / 3.359 / 50.5 / 44.4 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / K4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 17.3 / 11.7 / 1.479 / 2 / 37.9 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / N11 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 23.9 / 11.7 / 2.043 / 32 / 41 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / N3 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 40.9 / 11.7 / 3.496 / 42.5 / 54.8 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Budongo / W21 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 19.5 / 11.7 / 1.667 / 28.5 / 44.8 / [11]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 2.4 / 5.7 / 0.421 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 2.24 / 6.89 / 0.325 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K14 vs K30(1980-1) / grps/sqkm / 7.03 / 5.58 / 1.26 / 10.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1996-7) / grps/sqkm / 11.48 / 4.83 / 2.377 / 26.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1996-7) / grps/sqkm / 1.04 / 4.83 / 0.215 / 27.5 / 45 / [8]
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/sqkm / 2.21 / 5.58 / 0.396 / 11.5 / 45 / [8]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Cercopithecus ascanius / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / grps/sqkm / 2.57 / 7.25 / 0.354 / 12 / . / [9]
Cercopithecus cephus / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 6.2 / 3.8 / 1.632 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus cephus / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 1.7 / 3.8 / 0.447 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus cephus / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 9.6 / 3.8 / 2.526 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus diana / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 1.2 / 1.8 / 0.667 / 2 / . / [1]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 0.1 / 0.7 / 0.143 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.8 / 0 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 0.3 / 0.7 / 0.429 / 10.3 / 25 / [6]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 0.1 / 0.7 / 0.143 / 11.5 / 45 / [6]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.25 / 0 / 12 / . / [9]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / B1 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 85.9 / 7.05 / 12.184 / 7.5 / 38.4 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / B4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 61.1 / 7.05 / 8.667 / 50.5 / 44.4 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / K4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 33.6 / 7.05 / 4.766 / 2 / 37.9 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / N11 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 49 / 7.05 / 6.95 / 32 / 41 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / N3 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 53.3 / 7.05 / 7.56 / 42.5 / 54.8 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Budongo / W21 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 37.2 / 7.05 / 5.277 / 28.5 / 44.8 / [11]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 2.1 / 3.3 / 0.636 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 1.04 / 4.48 / 0.232 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 25.13 / 56.4 / 0.446 / 10.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 11.1 / 23.6 / 0.47 / 26.3 / 25 / [8]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1996-7) / grps/sqkm / 0.35 / 1 / 0.35 / 27.5 / 45 / [8]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/sqkm / 1.71 / 2.39 / 0.715 / 11.5 / 45 / [8]
Cercopithecus mitis / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / grps/sqkm / 2.86 / 4.25 / 0.673 / 12 / . / [9]
Cercopithecus nictitans / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 24.2 / 18.4 / 1.315 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus nictitans / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 7.71 / 18.4 / 0.419 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus nictitans / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 26.8 / 18.4 / 1.457 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus petaurista / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 3.3 / 3.9 / 0.846 / 2 / . / [1]
Cercopithecus pogonias / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 4.8 / 5.6 / 0.857 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus pogonias / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 2 / 5.6 / 0.357 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Cercopithecus pogonias / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 4.2 / 5.6 / 0.75 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Cheirogaleus medius / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 1.7 / 2.1 / 0.81 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Cheirogaleus medius / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 3.3 / 0.5 / 6.6 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Cheirogaleus medius / Morondava / N5 before vs after logging / ind/km / 4.1 / 1.5 / 2.733 / 1.5 / . / [12]
Chiropotes albinasus / Tapajos / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 1.36 / 0.88 / 1.545 / 10 / . / [2]
Chiropotes satanas / Gorupi / Intensely logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 0.11* / 1 / 0.11 / 2 / 50 / [1]
Chiropotes satanas / Gorupi / Lightly logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 2 / 10 / [1]
Chiropotes satanas / Remansinho / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.8 / 0 / 1 / 60 / [1]
Colobus badius / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 0.1 / 0.6 / 0.167 / 2 / . / [1]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 3.1 / 10.8 / 0.287 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 2.53 / 9.45 / 0.268 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 191.4 / 247.5 / 0.773 / 26.3 / 25 / [8]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 254.32 / 245.7 / 1.035 / 10.3 / 25 / [8]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 92.4 / 245.7 / 0.376 / 11.5 / 45 / [8]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 132.9 / 247.5 / 0.537 / 27.5 / 45 / [8]
Colobus badius / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / grps/sqkm / 1.14 / 8.06 / 0.141 / 12 / . / [9]
Colobus badius / Kibale / Sebatoli vs K30 (1996-7) / grps/sqkm / 6.38 / 6.07 / 1.051 / . / . / [13]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / B1 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 33.2 / 21.9 / 1.516 / 7.5 / 38.4 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / B4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 37 / 21.9 / 1.689 / 50.5 / 44.4 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / K4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 58.6 / 21.9 / 2.676 / 2 / 37.9 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / N11 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 38.6 / 21.9 / 1.763 / 32 / 41 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / N3 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 32.9 / 21.9 / 1.502 / 42.5 / 54.8 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Budongo / W21 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 52.1 / 21.9 / 2.379 / 28.5 / 44.8 / [11]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / grps/10km / 6.7 / 1 / 6.7 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 4.02 / 2.09 / 1.923 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 42.5 / 19.7 / 2.158 / 26.3 / 25 / [8]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 29.13 / 8.77 / 3.323 / 10.3 / 25 / [8]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1996-7) / ind/sqkm / 82.99 / 19.7 / 4.213 / 27.5 / 45 / [8]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/sqkm / 43.77 / 8.77 / 4.993 / 11.5 / 45 / [8]
Colobus guereza / Kibale / K7 vs K30 (1971-2) / ind/ha / 0.46 / 1 / 0.46 / 12 / . / [9]
Colobus kirkii / Zanzibar / Kwengwa vs Myuni / ind/sqkm / 4.33 / 23.33 / 0.186 / . / . / [14]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Colobus polykomos / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 1.6 / 1.7 / 0.941 / 2 / . / [1]
Colobus satanas / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 13.6 / 4.3 / 3.163 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Colobus satanas / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 13 / 4.3 / 3.023 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Colobus satanas / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 11 / 4.3 / 2.558 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Galagoides demidoff / Kibale / K14/15 vs K30 / sightings / 14 / 15 / 0.933 / 22.5 / 35 / [15]
Gorilla gorilla / Gabon1 / logged 6-18mo vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.19 / 0.23 / 0.826 / 1 / 23.2 / [16]
Gorilla gorilla / Gabon2 / logged 3-5yr vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.35 / 0.23 / 1.522 / 4 / 23.2 / [16]
Gorilla gorilla / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 1 / 0.4 / 2.5 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Gorilla gorilla / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 0.5 / 0.4 / 1.25 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Gorilla gorilla / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 0.3 / 0.4 / 0.75 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Gorilla gorilla / Lope / Tr5 before vs after / ind/sqkm / 0.3 / 0.4 / 0.75 / 0.5 / 5 / [17]
Hylobates agilis / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 1.6 / 8.9 / 0.18 / . / . / [18]
Hylobates lar / Kuala Rompin / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 1.75 / 1.95 / 0.897 / 1 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Lesong / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 3.8 / 3.55 / 1.07 / 0.5 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Lesong / III vs I / grps/sqkm / 3.75 / 3.55 / 1.056 / 1 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Lesong / IV vs I / grps/sqkm / 1.6 / 3.55 / 0.451 / 5 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Pasoh / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 2.2 / 2.05 / 1.073 / 25 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Lalang / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0.8 / 1 / 0.8 / 35 / . / [20]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Selai / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 2.55 / 2.9 / 0.879 / 2 / . / [19]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 10.34 / 8.62 / 1.2 / 6 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 19.31 / 8.62 / 2.24 / 12 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 5.17 / 8.62 / 0.6 / 1.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 9.31 / 8.62 / 1.08 / 7.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 11.03 / 8.62 / 1.28 / 9.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 12.76 / 8.62 / 1.48 / 3.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 22.41 / 8.62 / 2.6 / 15.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 5.86 / 8.62 / 0.68 / 5.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 10 / 8.62 / 1.16 / 11.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 12.76 / 8.62 / 1.48 / 17.5 / 50 / [21]
Hylobates lar / Ulu Sebol / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 3 / 2.5 / 1.2 / 1 / . / [19]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Hylobates muelleri / Bole Kecil / Malabuk vs Bole Kecil / grps/sqkm / 1.1 / 2.9 / 0.379 / 15 / 48.7 / [1]
Hylobates muelleri / East Kalimantan / Kutai (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 5 / 7.3 / 0.685 / 4 / 41.1 / [22]
Hylobates muelleri / East Kalimantan / Renggang vs Sepaku / grps/sqkm / 7.4 / 7.4 / 1 / 1.2 / 50 / [23]
Hylobates muelleri / Silbukan / Bakapit vs Silabukan / grps/sqkm / 2.3 / 2.4 / 0.958 / 19 / 44 / [1]
Hylobates muelleri / Ulu Segama / logged 1 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 4.5 / 5.3 / 0.849 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Hylobates muelleri / Ulu Segama / logged 2 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 11.1 / 5.3 / 2.094 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Hylobates muelleri / Ulu Segama / logged 3 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 3.9 / 5.3 / 0.736 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Hylobates muelleri / Ulu Segama / logged 4 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 4.2 / 5.3 / 0.792 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Hylobates syndactylus / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 0.01* / 11.6 / 0.02 / . / . / [18]
Lagothrix lagotricha / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 1.3* / 6 / 0.217 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Lepilemur mustelinus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 2.1 / 1.9 / 1.105 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Lepilemur mustelinus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 2.9 / 1.7 / 1.706 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Lepilemur mustelinus / Morondava / N5 before vs after logging / ind/km / 2.1 / 1.7 / 1.235 / 1.5 / . / [12]
Macaca fascicularis / East Kalimantan / Renggang vs Sepaku / grps/sqkm / 0 / 1.85 / 0 / 1.2 / 50 / [23]
Macaca fascicularis / Kuala Rompin / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 10.7 / 30.9 / 0.346 / . / . / [19]
Macaca fascicularis / Pasoh / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 2.69 / 0.49 / 5.49 / 25 / . / [19]
Macaca fascicularis / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 4.23* / 46.1 / 0.092 / . / . / [18]
Macaca fascicularis / Sungai Selai / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 0 / 2.5 / 0 / 2 / . / [19]
Macaca fascicularis / Ulu Sebol / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 3.2 / 6.6 / 0.485 / . / . / [19]
Macaca nemestrina / Bole Kecil / Malabuk vs Bole Kecil / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.7 / 0 / 15 / 48.7 / [1]
Macaca nemestrina / Kuala Rompin / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 0 / 3.7 / 0 / . / . / [19]
Macaca nemestrina / Pasoh / II vs I / grps/sqkm / 2.75 / 0.5 / 5.5 / 25 / . / [19]
Macaca nemestrina / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 0.01* / 28.3 / 0.02 / . / . / [18]
Macaca nemestrina / Sungai Lalang / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 5.5 / 1 / 5.5 / 35 / . / [20]
Macaca nemestrina / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 0.5 / 0.2 / 2.5 / 1.5 / 50 / [1]
Macaca nemestrina / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.2 / 0 / 3.5 / 50 / [1]
Macaca nemestrina / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 0.2 / 0.2 / 1 / 5.5 / 50 / [1]
Macaca nemestrina / Ulu Sebol / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 2.7 / 3.6 / 0.75 / . / . / [19]
Macaca nemestrina / Ulu Segama / logged 1 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 4 / 15.8 / 0.253 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Macaca nemestrina / Ulu Segama / logged 2 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 16 / 15.8 / 1.013 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Macaca nemestrina / Ulu Segama / logged 3 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 20 / 15.8 / 1.266 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Macaca nemestrina / Ulu Segama / logged 4 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 28 / 15.8 / 1.772 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Macaca nigra / Bacan / Wayamiga vs Gunung Sibela / ind/sqkm / 133.9 / 170.3 / 0.786 / . / . / [25]
Macaca silenus / Anaimalai hills / (logged vs unlogged) / troop size / 34 / 43 / 0.791 / 2 / . / [26]
Mandrillus sphinx / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 1.5 / 7.7 / 0.195 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Mandrillus sphinx / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 4.6 / 7.7 / 0.597 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Mandrillus sphinx / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 5.8 / 7.7 / 0.753 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Microcebus murinus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 0.3 / 3.2 / 0.094 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Microcebus murinus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 0.5 / 4.2 / 0.119 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Nycticebus coucang / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 6 / 25.1 / 0.239 / 1.5 / 50 / [1]
Nycticebus coucang / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 26.5 / 25.1 / 1.056 / 3.5 / 50 / [1]
Nycticebus coucang / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / grps/sqkm / 5.3 / 25.1 / 0.211 / 5.5 / 50 / [1]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / B1 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 0.7 / 3.11 / 0.225 / 7.5 / 38.4 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / B4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 0.92 / 3.11 / 0.296 / 50.5 / 44.4 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / K4 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 0.92 / 3.11 / 0.296 / 2 / 37.9 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / N11 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 1.43 / 3.11 / 0.46 / 32 / 41 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / N3 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 1.27 / 3.11 / 0.408 / 42.5 / 54.8 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Budongo / W21 vs KP / ind/sqkm / 1.54 / 3.11 / 0.495 / 28.5 / 44.8 / [11]
Pan troglodytes / Gabon1 / logged 6-18mo vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.14 / 0.59 / 0.237 / 1 / 23.2 / [16]
Pan troglodytes / Gabon2 / logged 3-5yr vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.35 / 0.59 / 0.593 / 4 / 23.2 / [16]
Pan troglodytes / Kalinzu / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 5.7 / 4.19 / 1.36 / 20 / . / [27]
Pan troglodytes / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/10km / 0.1 / 1.9 / 0.053 / 13.5 / 50 / [6]
Pan troglodytes / Kibale / K12/13/17 vs K30 (1974) / grps/sqkm / 0.07 / 0.35 / 0.2 / 3 / 44 / [7]
Pan troglodytes / Kibale / K14 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/10km / 0.9 / 1.9 / 0.474 / 10.3 / 25 / [6]
Pan troglodytes / Kibale / K15 vs K30 (1980-1) / ind/10km / 0.9 / 1.9 / 0.474 / 11.5 / 45 / [6]
Pan troglodytes / Lope / Tr1 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 0.7 / 1.1 / 0.636 / 25 / 8 / [10]
Pan troglodytes / Lope / Tr2 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 0.2 / 1.1 / 0.182 / 3 / 8 / [10]
Pan troglodytes / Lope / Tr4 vs Tr3 / ind/sqkm / 0.5 / 1.1 / 0.455 / 15 / 8 / [10]
Pan troglodytes / Lope / Tr5 before vs after / ind/sqkm / 0.2 / 1.1 / 0.182 / 0.5 / 5 / [17]
Papio anubis / Budongo / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 11 / 14 / 0.786 / 25.5 / 41 / [11]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Perodicticus potto / Kibale / K14/15 vs K30 / ind/sqkm / 1.8 / 17.7 / 0.102 / 22.5 / 35 / [15]
Petterus fulvus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 0.5 / 1.3 / 0.385 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Petterus fulvus / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 0.3 / 0.6 / 0.5 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Petterus fulvus / Morondava / N5 before vs after logging / ind/km / 1.2 / 0.6 / 2 / 1.5 / . / [12]
Phaner furcifer / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 0.1 / 1.6 / 0.063 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Phaner furcifer / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 0.3 / 0.8 / 0.375 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Phaner furcifer / Morondava / N5 before vs after logging / ind/km / 0.9 / 0.5 / 1.8 / 1.5 / . / [12]
Pithecia albicans / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 18 / 9 / 2 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Pongo pygmaeus / Bole Kecil / Malabuk vs Bole Kecil / grps/sqkm / 0.45* / 3 / 0.15 / 15 / 48.7 / [1]
Pongo pygmaeus / Danau Sentarum / high vs low disturbance / ind/sqkm / 3.06 / 24.86 / 0.123 / . / . / [28]
Pongo pygmaeus / Danau Sentarum / medium vs low disturbance / ind/sqkm / 23.33 / 24.86 / 0.938 / . / . / [28]
Pongo pygmaeus / Danum Valley / (logged vs unlogged) / nests/km / 3.31 / 4.95 / 0.669 / 9 / . / [29]
Pongo pygmaeus / Ketambe / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 2.6 / 6.6 / 0.394 / 5 / [30]
Pongo pygmaeus / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 0 / 3.1 / 0 / . / . / [18]
Pongo pygmaeus / Ulu Segama / logged 1 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.5 / 0.3 / 1.667 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Pongo pygmaeus / Ulu Segama / logged 2 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.9 / 0.3 / 3 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Pongo pygmaeus / Ulu Segama / logged 3 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0.13 / 0.3 / 0.433 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Pongo pygmaeus / Ulu Segama / logged 4 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 2.1 / 0.3 / 7 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis comata / Bole Kecil / Malabuk vs Bole Kecil / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.7 / 0 / 15 / 48.7 / [1]
Presbytis comata / Silabukan / Bakapit vs Silabukan / grps/sqkm / 1.3 / 3.6 / 0.361 / 19 / 44 / [1]
Presbytis comata / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 43.8 / 47.9 / 0.914 / . / . / [18]
Presbytis comata / Ulu Segama / logged 1 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 0 / 2 / 0 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis comata / Ulu Segama / logged 2 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 7.2 / 2 / 3.6 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis comata / Ulu Segama / logged 3 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 2 / 2 / 1 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis comata / Ulu Segama / logged 4 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 5.7 / 2 / 2.85 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis cristata / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 2.41* / 24.1 / 0.1 / . / . / [18]
Presbytis melalophos / Kuala Rompin / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 5 / 9.6 / 0.521 / 1 / . / [19]
Presbytis melalophos / Lesong / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 1 / 19.4 / 0.052 / 0.5 / . / [19]
Presbytis melalophos / Lesong / III vs I / ind/sqkm / 2.7 / 19.4 / 0.139 / 0.5 / . / [19]
Presbytis melalophos / Lesong / IV vs I / ind/sqkm / 10.7 / 19.4 / 0.552 / 5 / . / [19]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Presbytis melalophos / Pasoh / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 17.4 / 16.2 / 1.074 / 25 / . / [19]
Presbytis melalophos / Sumatran lowland forest / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 1.82* / 45.8 / 0.04 / . / . / [18]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Lalang / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0.58 / 1 / 0.58 / 35 / . / [20]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Selai / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 11 / 50.7 / 0.217 / 2 / . / [19]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 45.17 / 47.24 / 0.956 / 6 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 77.59 / 47.24 / 1.642 / 12 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 23.79 / 47.24 / 0.504 / 7.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 25.86 / 47.24 / 0.547 / 1.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 33.45 / 47.24 / 0.708 / 9.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 41.72 / 47.24 / 0.883 / 3.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 53.45 / 47.24 / 1.131 / 15.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 28.62 / 47.24 / 0.606 / 5.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 29.31 / 47.24 / 0.62 / 11.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 39.66 / 47.24 / 0.839 / 17.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis melalophos / Ulu Sebol / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 19.1 / 114.8 / 0.166 / 1 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Kuala Rompin / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 0 / 14.5 / 0 / 1 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Lesong / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 5 / 9.6 / 0.521 / 0.5 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Lesong / III vs I / ind/sqkm / 3 / 9.6 / 0.313 / 1 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Lesong / IV vs I / ind/sqkm / 12.3 / 9.6 / 1.281 / 5 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Pasoh / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 2.2 / 14.7 / 0.15 / 25 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Lalang / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0.23 / 1 / 0.23 / 35 / . / [20]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Selai / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 0 / 4.7 / 0 / 2 / . / [19]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 17.59 / 7.59 / 2.318 / 6 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / C13C (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 25.86 / 7.59 / 3.409 / 12 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 11.72 / 7.59 / 1.545 / 7.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / C5A (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 14.83 / 7.59 / 1.955 / 1.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 29.31 / 7.59 / 3.864 / 9.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 30.69 / 7.59 / 4.045 / 3.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line2 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 50.69 / 7.59 / 6.682 / 15.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1981) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 4.48 / 7.59 / 0.591 / 5.5 / 50 / [21]
Species / Study Site / Plots compared / Abundance units / Abundance
(logged forest) / Abundance
(unlogged forest) / Response ratio / Recovery time (years) / Logging intensity (% of trees lost/damaged) / Source
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1987) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 9.31 / 7.59 / 1.227 / 11.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Sungai Tekam / Line3 (1993) vs C13C (1979) / ind/sqkm / 36.21 / 7.59 / 4.773 / 17.5 / 50 / [21]
Presbytis obscura / Ulu Sebol / II vs I / ind/sqkm / 6 / 16.7 / 0.359 / 1 / . / [19]
Presbytis rubicunda / Bole Kecil / Malabuk vs Bole Kecil / grps/sqkm / 1.1 / 4.5 / 0.244 / 15 / 48.7 / [1]
Presbytis rubicunda / East Kalimantan / Kutai (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 1.3 / 2.2 / 0.591 / 4 / 41.1 / [22]
Presbytis rubicunda / East Kalimantan / Renggang vs Sepaku / grps/sqkm / 1.85 / 1.85 / 1 / 1.2 / 50 / [23]
Presbytis rubicunda / Silabukan / Bakapit vs Silabukan / grps/sqkm / 1.3 / 0.9 / 1.444 / 19 / 44 / [1]
Presbytis rubicunda / Ulu Segama / logged 1 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 7 / 13.6 / 0.515 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis rubicunda / Ulu Segama / logged 2 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 12.6 / 13.6 / 0.926 / 6 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis rubicunda / Ulu Segama / logged 3 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 4.6 / 13.6 / 0.338 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Presbytis rubicunda / Ulu Segama / logged 4 vs unlogged / ind/sqkm / 13 / 13.6 / 0.956 / 12 / 73 / [24]
Procolobus verus / Bia / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/10km / 0.8 / 1.1 / 0.727 / 2 / . / [1]
Propithecus verreauxi / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1992 survey) / ind/km / 0.4 / 1.5 / 0.267 / 6.5 / . / [12]
Propithecus verreauxi / Morondava / CN5 vs CS7 (1990 survey) / ind/km / 0.3 / 1 / 0.3 / 4.5 / . / [12]
Propithecus verreauxi / Morondava / N5 before vs after logging / ind/km / 1.1 / 0.4 / 2.75 / 1.5 / . / [12]
Saguinus midas / Gorupi / Intensely logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 0.4 / 3 / 0.133 / 2 / 50 / [1]
Saguinus midas / Gorupi / Lightly logged vs primary / grps/sqkm / 1.5 / 3 / 0.5 / 2 / 10 / [1]
Saguinus midas / Remansinho / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 3.6 / 3.1 / 1.161 / 1 / 60 / [1]
Saguinus mystax / Ponta da Castanha / logged vs primary / ind/sqkm / 88 / 78 / 1.128 / 11 / 61 / [5]
Saimiri ustus / Tapajos / (logged vs unlogged) / grps/sqkm / 0 / 0.1 / 0 / 10 / . / [2]
Saimiri vanzolinii / lower Rio Japura / Vila Sao Pedro vs Lago Teiu / grps/sqkm / 0.7 / 1.4 / 0.5 / . / . / [4]
Tarsius pumilus / Lore Lindu / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 5.6 / 13.6 / 0.412 / . / . / [31]
Varecia variegata / Ranomafana / (logged vs unlogged) / ind/sqkm / 0 / 16.2 / 0 / . / . / [32]
*An asterisk denotes that animals were known to be present in logged areas but not observed on transects. In these cases (n=9), we estimated the logged forest abundance based on 0.5 individuals living in the area sampled.
Dataset S2: Species biological trait data.
Rainfall seasonality (proportion of rain in wettest quarter) / Social group size / Terrestriality (% time spent at or below 5m ± 2m in the canopy)
Alouatta belzebul / 4 / 5.52 / [33] / . / 13 / [34] / 10 / [35] / 59 / [35] / 8.4 / 0.48 / [36] / 5 / [37] / 0 / [38]
Alouatta palliata / 5 / 5.35 / [33] / 186 / [37] / 48 / [39] / 35 / [37] / 13 / [37] / 10 / 0.49 / [40] / 13 / [37] / 0 / [41]
Alouatta seniculus / 1 / 5.21 / [33] / 191 / [37] / 29 / [39] / 16 / [37] / 42 / [37] / 8.1 / 0.39 / [36] / 5 / [37] / 0 / [42]
Aotus azarae / 1 / 1.23 / [33] / 127 / [37] / 24 / [39] / 3 / [37] / 70 / [37] / 12 / 0.43 / [43] / 3 / [37] / 0 / [44]
Ateles belzebuth / 1 / 7.85 / [33] / 139 / [45] / 9 / [39] / 325 / [37] / 83 / [37] / 8.1 / 0.39 / [36] / 12 / [37] / .
Ateles geoffroyi / 5 / 7.29 / [33] / 229 / [37] / 18 / [39] / 86 / [37] / 78 / [46] / 10 / 0.49 / [40] / 20 / [37] / 0 / [47]
Ateles paniscus / 2 / 8.44 / [33] / 225 / [37] / 11 / [39] / 225 / [37] / 83 / [37] / 8.1 / 0.39 / [36] / 18 / [37] / 0 / [42]
Callicebus cupreus / 1 / 1.12 / [33] / 130 / [48] / . / . / . / 10 / 0.33 / [43] / . / .
Callicebus torquatus / 1 / 1.21 / [33] / . / 17 / [39] / 12 / [37] / 67 / [49] / 8.8 / 0.29 / [36] / 4 / [37] / .
Cebus albifrons / 1 / 2.29 / [33] / 162 / [37] / 10 / [39] / 250 / [37] / 95 / [37] / 8.8 / 0.29 / [36] / 20 / [37] / 6 / [50]
Cebus apella / 5 / 2.52 / [33] / 154 / [37] / 12 / [39] / 33 / [37] / 91 / [37] / 11.2 / 0.44 / [36] / 11 / [37] / 2 / [50,51]
Cebus capucinus / 5 / 2.54 / [33] / 162 / [37] / 12 / [39] / 59 / [37] / 65 / [37] / 6.7 / 0.43 / [40] / 15 / [37] / . / .
Cercocebus albigena / 10 / 6.02 / [33] / 187 / [37] / 17 / [52] / 31 / [37] / 65 / [53] / 8.3 / 0.36 / [54] / 15 / [37] / 0 / [55,56]
Cercocebus torquatus / 1 / 5.5 / [33] / 168 / [37] / 14 / [52] / 247 / [57] / 86 / [57] / 8.1 / 0.49 / [54] / 37 / [37] / 70 / [57,58]
Cercopithecus ascanius / 13 / 2.92 / [33] / 149 / [45] / 61 / [52] / 39 / [37] / 62 / [37] / 9.3 / 0.51 / [54] / 21 / [37] / 12 / [56]
Cercopithecus cephus / 3 / 2.88 / [33] / 168 / [59] / 17 / [52] / 32 / [37] / 74 / [53] / 8.8 / 0.38 / [54] / 20 / [37] / 10 / [55]
Cercopithecus diana / 1 / 3.9 / [33] / . / 41 / [52] / 93 / [37] / 52 / [60] / 9.2 / 0.38 / [54] / 28 / [37] / 6 / [60]
Cercopithecus lhoesti / 5 / 3.45 / [33] / . / . / 850 / [37] / 42 / [61] / 10.5 / 0.35 / [54] / 11 / [37] / .
Cercopithecus mitis / 13 / 4.25 / [33] / 140 / [37] / 127 / [52] / 37 / [37] / 57 / [61] / 14 / 0.68 / [54] / 39 / [37] / 5 / [56]
Cercopithecus nictitans / 3 / 4.26 / [33] / 168 / [59] / 23 / [52] / 56 / [37] / 70 / [53] / 8.7 / 0.4 / [54] / 20 / [37] / 0 / [55]
Cercopithecus petaurista / 1 / 2.9 / [33] / . / 43 / [52] / . / 77 / [60] / 5.8 / 0.5 / [54] / 18 / [37] / 10 / [60]
Cercopithecus pogonias / 3 / 2.9 / [33] / 165 / [37] / 14 / [52] / 78 / [37] / 78 / [53] / 9.7 / 0.38 / [54] / 14 / [37] / 2 / [55,56,62]
Cheirogaleus medius / 3 / 0.23 / [33] / 62 / [37] / 173 / [63] / 4 / [37] / 79 / [64] / 10.8 / 0.73 / [54] / 3 / [37] / 42 / [64]
Species name / Number of responses / Body mass (female, kg) / Gestation period (days) / Population density (individuals km-2) / Home range (ha) / Degree of frugivory (fruits and seeds as % of total feeding time) / Annual temperature range (at centre of geographic range)
Rainfall seasonality (proportion of rain in wettest quarter) / Social group size / Terrestriality (% time spent at or below 5m ± 2m in the canopy)
Chiropotes albinasus / 1 / 2.49 / [33] / 157 / [37] / 7 / [39] / 100 / [37] / 90 / [37] / 11.2 / 0.44 / [36] / 14 / [37] / .
Chiropotes satanas / 3 / 2.77 / [33] / 160 / [37] / 9 / [39] / 163 / [37] / 96 / [65] / 8.4 / 0.48 / [36] / 20 / [37] / 0 / [38]
Colobus badius / 8 / 7.47 / [33] / 198 / [37] / 156 / [52] / 35 / [37] / 31 / [66] / 7.6 / 0.39 / [54] / 49 / [37] / 1 / [56,58,67]
Colobus guereza / 13 / 8.6 / [33] / 170 / [45] / 176 / [52] / 16 / [37] / 15 / [66] / 11.2 / 0.34 / [54] / 9 / [37] / 9 / [68]
Colobus polykomos / 1 / 8.3 / [33] / 170 / [37] / 39 / [52] / 20 / [37] / 35 / [66] / 9.2 / 0.38 / [54] / 13 / [37] / 1 / [58]
Colobus satanas / 3 / 7.42 / [33] / 195 / [37] / 20 / [52] / 60 / [37] / 59 / [66] / 9.8 / 0.44 / [54] / 15 / [37] / 3 / [55,67]
Galagoides demidoff / 1 / 0.06 / [33] / 113 / [37] / 47 / [52] / 1 / [37] / 19 / [37] / 8.7 / 0.4 / [54] / 4 / [37] / 11 / [69]
Gorilla gorilla / 6 / 71.5 / [33] / 256 / [37] / 0.7 / [52] / 1200 / [37] / 47 / [53] / 8 / 0.45 / [54] / 12 / [37] / .
Hylobates lar / 18 / 5.34 / [33] / 205 / [37] / 6 / [70] / 33 / [37] / 50 / [37] / 8.3 / 0.57 / [71] / 5 / [37] / .
Hylobates muelleri / 8 / 5.35 / [33] / . / 10 / [70] / 38 / [37] / 62 / [37] / 10 / 0.28 / [71] / 4 / [37] / 0 / [72]
Lagothrix lagotricha / 1 / 7.09 / [33] / 223 / [37] / 10 / [39] / 750 / [37] / 75 / [37] / 8.1 / 0.39 / [36] / 33 / [37] / 0 / [51]
Lepilemur mustelinus / 3 / 0.78 / [33] / 140 / [37] / 186 / [63] / 2 / [37] / 30 / [64] / 10.4 / 0.59 / [54] / 2 / [37] / 13 / [64]
Macaca fascicularis / 3 / 3.59 / [33] / 165 / [37] / 50 / [73] / 113 / [37] / 87 / [74] / 7.8 / 0.5 / [71] / 29 / [37] / 4 / [72]
Macaca nemestrina / 10 / 5.7 / [33] / 171 / [37] / 15 / [73] / 445 / [37] / 74 / [37] / 8.9 / 0.46 / [71] / 28 / [37] / 72 / [72]
Macaca silenus / 1 / 6.1 / [33] / 174 / [37] / . / 131 / [37] / 67 / [75] / 11.7 / 0.51 / [71] / 17 / [37] / 2 / [75]
Mandrillus sphinx / 3 / 12.9 / [33] / 220 / [37] / 7 / [52] / 3000 / [37] / 81 / [53] / 8 / 0.45 / [54] / 95 / [37] / 67 / [76]
Microcebus murinus / 2 / 0.09 / [33] / 60 / [37] / 42 / [63] / 2 / [37] / 53 / [64] / 10.8 / 0.73 / [54] / 3 / [37] / 89 / [64]
Nycticebus coucang / 3 / 0.83 / [33] / 191 / [37] / 20 / [77] / . / 50 / [37] / 8.9 / 0.46 / [71] / . / .
Pan troglodytes / 17 / 41.6 / [33] / 240 / [37] / 2 / [52] / 3550 / [37] / 77 / [53] / 5.8 / 0.43 / [54] / 37 / [37] / 18 / [55]
Papio anubis / 1 / 12.5 / [33] / 180 / [37] / 13 / [52] / 1968 / [37] / 32 / [78] / 13.4 / 0.5 / [54] / 50 / [37] / .
Perodicticus potto / 1 / 1.03 / [33] / 197 / [37] / 5 / [52] / 8 / [37] / 65 / [79] / 9 / 0.38 / [54] / 2 / [37] / 85 / [69]
Petterus fulvus / 3 / 2.15 / [33] / 120 / [37] / 120 / [63] / 12 / [37] / 25 / [80] / 10.4 / 0.59 / [54] / 16 / [37] / 20 / [81]
Phaner furcifer / 3 / 0.46 / [33] / . / 96 / [63] / 4 / [37] / 17 / [64] / 8.6 / 0.69 / [54] / 3 / [37] / 16 / [64]
Pithecia albicans / 1 / 2.8 / [82] / . / 10 / [51] / 176 / [37] / 80 / [37] / 8.1 / 0.39 / [36] / 5 / [37] / 2 / [51]
Pongo pygmaeus / 7 / 35.7 / [33] / 244 / [37] / 2 / [73] / 410 / [37] / 61 / [83] / 9.4 / 0.41 / [71] / 2 / [37] / 12 / [72]
Species name / Number of responses / Body mass (female, kg) / Gestation period (days) / Population density (individuals km-2) / Home range (ha) / Degree of frugivory (fruits and seeds as % of total feeding time) / Annual temperature range (at centre of geographic range)
Rainfall seasonality (proportion of rain in wettest quarter) / Social group size / Terrestriality (% time spent at or below 5m ± 2m in the canopy)
Presbytis comata / 6 / 6.71 / [33] / . / 24 / [84] / 17 / [37] / 15 / [37] / 6.7 / 0.45 / [71] / 7 / [37] / 4 / [72]
Presbytis obscura / 18 / 6.26 / [33] / 150 / [37] / 72 / [84] / 33 / [37] / 35 / [37] / 10.2 / 0.44 / [85] / 10 / [37] / .
Presbytis rubicunda / 8 / 6.17 / [33] / . / 16 / [84] / 61 / [37] / 49 / [37] / 6.7 / 0.3 / [71] / 7 / [37] / .
Procolobus verus / 1 / 4.2 / [33] / 165 / [37] / 14 / [52] / 29 / [37] / 17 / [37] / 6 / 0.52 / [54] / 8 / [37] / 13 / [58]
Propithecus verreauxi / 3 / 3.62 / [33] / 143 / [37] / 46 / [63] / 5 / [37] / 40 / [80] / 10.8 / 0.73 / [54] / 7 / [37] / 6 / [86]
Saguinus midas / 3 / 0.58 / [33] / 154 / [37] / 10 / [39] / 9 / [37] / 47 / [87] / 8.4 / 0.48 / [36] / 5 / [37] / 3 / [88]
Saguinus mystax / 1 / 0.54 / [33] / 145 / [37] / 24 / [39] / 30 / [37] / 51 / [89] / 13.1 / 0.41 / [36] / 5 / [37] / 12 / [51]
Saimiri ustus / 1 / 0.8 / [33] / . / . / . / . / 13 / 0.49 / [36] / . / .
1