2003Journal of BiogeographyRequires access

Are rare primate taxa specialists or simply less studied?

D. Doherty, Alexander H. Harcourt

Open publisher page 19 citations

Abstract

Abstract Aim Rare species are reported to be specialized. However, rare taxa are usually less studied than are common taxa. If so, the reported specialization might be just a result of paucity of records. We here test for this sampling artefact in primates, a taxon in which rarity has been explained by specialization. Location Tropical Africa, Madagascar, Asia, Americas. Methods We define rare and common species as those with geographical range sizes in the lower and upper quartiles, respectively, for primates in each realm. We conducted two independent searches of published literature to determine if there were significantly fewer studies on a common measure of specialization, diet, for rare vs. common species. We then tested for sampling artefact in reported diet breadth by comparing the number of references needed to obtain it for both rare and common species. Results We found, in both literature searches, significantly fewer studies on diet for rare primates – a mode of zero references for rare species, and one for common. By contrast, no significant difference existed for number of references needed to attain the full reported diet breadth: a median of one reference for both specialized, rare and generalized, common species. Main conclusions Rare species are indeed studied less. Nevertheless, the finding that rare primates are specialists is not necessarily mere sampling artefact.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Aim Rare species are reported to be specialized. However, rare taxa are usually less studied than are common taxa. If so, the reported specialization might be just a result of paucity of records. We here test for this sampling artefact in primates, a taxon in which rarity has been explained by specialization. Location Tropical Africa, Madagascar, Asia, Americas. Methods We define rare and common species as those with geographical range sizes in the lower and upper quartiles, respectively, for primates in each realm. We conducted two independent searches of published literature to determine if there were significantly fewer studies on a common measure of specialization, diet, for rare vs. common species. We then tested for sampling artefact in reported diet breadth by comparing the number of references needed to obtain it for both rare and common species. Results We found, in both literature searches, significantly fewer studies on diet for rare primates – a mode of zero references for rare species, and one for common. By contrast, no significant difference existed for number of references needed to attain the full reported diet breadth: a median of one reference for both specialized, rare and generalized, common species. Main conclusions Rare species are indeed studied less. Nevertheless, the finding that rare primates are specialists is not necessarily mere sampling artefact.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 19 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Aim Rare species are reported to be specialized. However, rare taxa are usually less studied than are common taxa. If so, the reported specialization might be just a result of paucity of records. We here test for this sampling artefact in primates, a taxon in which rarity has been explained by specialization. Location Tropical Africa, Madagascar, Asia, Americas. Methods We define rare and common species as those with geographical range sizes in the lower and upper quartiles, respectively, for primates in each realm. We conducted two independent searches of published literature to determine if there were significantly fewer studies on a common measure of specialization, diet, for rare vs. common species. We then tested for sampling artefact in reported diet breadth by comparing the number of references needed to obtain it for both rare and common species. Results We found, in both literature searches, significantly fewer studies on diet for rare primates – a mode of zero references for rare species, and one for common. By contrast, no significant difference existed for number of references needed to attain the full reported diet breadth: a median of one reference for both specialized, rare and generalized, common species. Main conclusions Rare species are indeed studied less. Nevertheless, the finding that rare primates are specialists is not necessarily mere sampling artefact.

Key concepts: Rare species, Taxon, Common species, Biology, Range (aeronautics), Ecology, Evolutionary biology, Zoology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Are rare primate taxa specialists or simply less studied? — Research Paper | ScholarLens