Conservation ecology, morphology and reproduction

of the nocturnal
northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza
in Sahamalaza National Park, northwestern Madagascar


Dissertation Course Name
MSc Primate Conservation
Title
Conservation ecology, morphology and reproduction of the nocturnal northern giant mouse
lemur Mirza zaza in Sahamalaza National Park, northwestern Madagascar
Student Number Surname
09082861 Rode
Other Names
Eva Johanna
Course for which acceptable:
MSc Primate Conservation
Date of Submission
17th September, 2010










This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the regulations for an MSc degree.


Oxford Brookes University

Statement of originality

Except for those parts in which it is explicitly stated to the contrary, this project is
my own work. It has not been submitted for any degree at this or any other
academic or professional institution.

17th September, 2010
.
Signature Date


Regulations Governing the Deposit and Use of Oxford Brookes University Projects/
Dissertations

1. The top copies of projects/dissertations submitted in fulfilment of
programme requirements shall normally be kept by the School.

2. The author shall sign a declaration agreeing that the project/ dissertation
be available for reading and photocopying at the discretion of the Dean of
School in accordance with 3 and 4 below.

3. The Dean of School shall safeguard the interests of the author by
requiring persons who consult the project/dissertation to sign a
declaration acknowledging the authors copyright.

4. Permission for any one other then the author to reproduce or photocopy
any part of the dissertation must be obtained from the Head of School
who will give his/her permission for such reproduction on to an extent
which he/she considers to be fair and reasonable.

I agree that this dissertation may be available for reading and photocopying at the
discretion of my Dean of School in accordance with regulations 3 and 4 above.*



17th September, 2010
.
Signature Date





*The underlined words may be deleted by the author if he/she so wishes.
i

Abstract


Madagascar, a primate conservation hotspot, has by far the highest percentage of
primate species Red-Listed as Data Deficient. The underlying gaps in conservation-relevant
knowledge make it difficult to design effective conservation measures. The northern giant
mouse lemur (Mirza zaza) was only described in 2005 (Kappeler et al, 2005) and is listed as
Data Deficient on the IUCN Red List. This study was conducted as the first comprehensive
ecological study of the species and aimed at gathering necessary information for the design of
effective conservation measures. In Ankarafa Forest in Sahamalaza National Park,
northwestern Madagascar, we radio-tracked 8 individuals of M. zaza over 2.5 months in the
dry season. During its nocturnal activity the species was found to have extensively
overlapping home ranges.Group home ranges varied between 0.52 and 2.34 ha. M. zaza
favoured large trees in dense microhabitats and preferred certain tree species. Up to 4 animals
including several males with fully developed testes shared a group-exclusive nest which
suggests multi-male/multi-female or extended families nest groups. The nests were changed
maximum three times during the study time which could indicate a scarcity in suitable nest
sites. Nest sites were characterised by large and tall trees with many lianas. Morphology data
and behaviour observations suggest that M. zaza reproduces aseasonally and exhibits a
promiscuous mating system. We found significant morphological differences to another M.
zaza population in the region of Ambato which is divided from Sahamalaza by the large
Sambirano River. Genetic analyses should clarify whether the Sahamalaza population
represents another sub-species or species. Based on these finding we recommend protecting
the remaining habitat of M. zaza in Ankarafa Forest, focussing on dense forest areas and large
trees while limiting selective logging. Reforestation measures should include preferred tree
species and target a high density of trees.





ii

Acknowledgements

The people I want to thank here cannot be ranked according to importance as the help of
each person was highly appreciated and necessary to complete this project as it appears here.
First, I would like to thank my academic supervisor Dr. Anna Nekaris who encouraged
me to do this project and assisted me in its development and finalisation. Her passion for
nocturnal primates and enthusiasm for Mirza zaza (which she has never seen) was infectious.
The advices of the MSc Primate Conservation staff Prof. Simon Bearder and Dr. Vincent
Nijman were highly appreciated.
My sincere thanks go to Dr. Christoph Schwitzer who made it possible for me to travel
to Madagascar and realise this project. He offered me constant assistence in England and
during the field time. Whenever I had a problem I could count on his help. This thank is
extended to Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation, Bristol Zoo Gardens and AEECL
for supporting and facilitating the conservation work in Sahamalaza. AEECL programme
director Guy H. Randriatahina and his wife Sylviane Volampeno helped me to organise my
project in Madagascar. I am grateful to the MICET staff that assisted with the paperwork and
MNP that allowed me to conduct research in Sahamalaza Iles Ramada National Park.
Special thanks goes to my fabulous research counterpart Fara Faratiana
Rafianinantsoa (University of Mahajanga) and my two excellent guides Popol Rakotonirina
Jean Paul and Patrice (anonymous). Thanks also to all the other guides and researchers at
Ankarafa Research Station, and the staff of Tsimbazaza Zoo for their initial help to capture
the animals.
Many other people helped me to access information about Mirza zaza and assisted me
in the project: Sarah Zehr and David Haring from the Duke Lemur Center, US, provided me
with interesting life history data about Mirza zaza, Mathias Markolf from the German Primate
Center, Germany, gave me numerous advice for the practical implementation of the project,
and Chris Birkinshaw helped me to translate Malagasy names of tree species.
The help of numerous people, who read my dissertation, assisted in understanding
methods and gave helpful tips for improvement, was highly appreciated.
The project would not have been feasible without the financial support of Primate
Conservation Inc. and Conservation International Primate Action Fund.
Last but not least, I want to thank my family and my partner Christoph Rei for their
never ending support, encouragement and love throughout the whole project.
iii


Table of contents

Abstract .... i
Acknowledgements . ii
Table of contents ....... iii
List of tables .... v
List of figures ......... vi
List of acronyms ....... vii
1. General Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Madagascar: The home of the lemurs ........................................................................ 1
1.2. Main threats to biodiversity in Madagascar ............................................................... 2
1.3. Sahamalaza- Iles Ramada National Park, northwestern Madagascar ........................ 2
1.4. Goal and aims of the project ...................................................................................... 3
1.5. Structure of dissertation ............................................................................................. 4
2. General methods ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Taxonomy of Mirza zaza ............................................................................................ 5
2.2. Study site .................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Data collection ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3.1 Capturing Mirza zaza ................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Morphology ................................................................................................................ 8
2.3.3 Radio-tracking and home ranges................................................................................ 9
2.3.4 Habitat and nest .......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.6 Analysis .................................................................................................................... 10
Plate 1: Study site Ankarafa Forest, Sahamalaza, northwestern Madagascar
Plate 2: Lemur community in Ankarafa Forest, Sahamalaza
Plate 3: Procedure of capturing and processing Mirza zaza
Plate 4: Morphology and reproduction of Mirza zaza
Plate 5: Food of Mirza zaza
Plate 6: Injuries of Mirza zaza

iv


3. Morphology and reproduction of the northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza in
Sahamalaza National Park, northwestern Madagascar ..................................................... 11
3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 12
3.3. Results ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 17
3.5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 20
4. Conservation implications of home range and habitat use of the northern giant
mouse lemur Mirza zaza, in Sahamalaza, northwestern Madagascar ............................... 21
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 21
4.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 23
4.3. Results ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 32
4.5. Conclusions and conservation recommendations .................................................... 34
5. Characteristics and use of nests and nest sites of the northern giant mouse lemur
Mirza zaza, in Sahamalaza, northwestern Madagascar ...................................................... 35
5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 35
5.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 37
5.3. Results ...................................................................................................................... 38
5.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 42
5.5. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 47
6. Synopsis ............................................................................................................................ 48
6.1. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 48
6.2. Future research ......................................................................................................... 48
7. References ........................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix 1: Oestrus cycle of Mirza zaza....58
Appendix 2: Incremental area analysis of group and individual home rages of Mirza zaza...59
Appendix 3: Variables used to study Mirza zaza ..65


(Word count: 16,125)
v

List of tables

Table 1: Identification codes, sex and age of all individuals captured at the given dates in
Ankarafa forest research station in May and July 2010. ........................................... 14
Table 2: Descriptive statistics (mean and SD) for 18 morphometric variables of adult male
and female Mirza zaza from Sahamalaza National Park. .......................................... 15
Table 3: Weight, absolute and relative testes volume (testes volume divided by body mass) at
the first and the second capture of 5 male individuals of Mirza zaza ....................... 16
Table 4: Summary of suspected birth and mating season of Mirza zaza. ............................... 18
Table 5: Summary of morphological and behavioural characteristics of Mirza zaza that give
an indication of the mating system. ........................................................................... 19
Table 6: Mirza zaza captured in May and July 2010. ............................................................. 24
Table 7: Individual home ranges for 8 animals of Mirza zaza, as calculated using MCP and
95 % kernel method. .................................................................................................. 26
Table 8: Home range overlap between individuals of group 1 and 3 respectively, as calculated
with MCP and 95 % kernel method ........................................................................... 27
Table 9: Medians for 5 variables of used and random trees in two forests A and B. .............. 29
Table 10: Medians for 7 variables of used and random microhabitat in two forests A and B. 30
Table 11: Tree species, families and Malagasy names of large and small trees used most often
by Mirza zaza during their nightly activity. .............................................................. 31
Table 12: Height, distance from top of the tree and number of lianas of 6 Mirza zaza nests . 39
Table 13: Medians for 5 nest tree variables and comparison to used trees and random trees in
two forests A and B. .................................................................................................. 40
Table 14: Medians for 7 variables of microhabitat and comparison to used microhabitat and
random microhabitat in two different forests. ........................................................... 40
Table 15: Nest group composition of three groups of Mirza zaza. ......................................... 41
Table 16: Oestrus cycle of Mirza zaza in captivity and vaginal appearance of each cycle. ... 58
Table 17: Variables of habitat and habitat use, and ethogram of Mirza zaza as used for this
project ........................................................................................................................ 65

List of figures

Figure 1: Ankarafa Forest with the two study sites forest A and forest B and the location of
the camp ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Home range overlap between nest group 1 and individual F2, using MCP method.
.................................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3: Individual home ranges for groups 1, 2 and 3 in two forests A and B, and overlap,
using MCP method. .................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4: Individual home ranges for groups 1, 2 and 3 in two forests A and B, and overlap,
using 95 % kernel method ........................................................................................................ 27
Figure 5: Percentage (%) of height classes used by 8 individuals Mirza zaza in forest A and B
during nocturnal activity .......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6: Percentage of tree types used by Mirza zaza compared to random trees. ............... 29



List of acronyms

AEECL: Association Europenne pour LEtude et la Conservation des
Lmuriens (European Association for the Study and Conservation of
Lemurs)
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height
IUCN: World Conservation Union
MICET: Madagascar Institut pour la Conservation des Environnements
Tropicaux (Malagasy Institute for the Conservation of Tropical
Environments)
MNP: Madagascar National Parks
UN: United Nations
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WCS: Wildlife Conservation Society


1
1. General Introduction

1.1. Madagascar: The home of the lemurs

The great red island Madagascar has separated from Afrika 180 million years ago and
since then its biodiversity has evolved in isolation and at very high rates [Ratsimbazafy et al.,
2008]. The divergence of Lemuriformes and Lorisiformes (galagos and lorises in mainland
Africa and Asia) is estimated at 75 Million years and thus happened after the separation of
Madagascar from Africa [Horvath et al., 2008]. Their arrival on Madagascar could be
explained by early lemuriformes ancestors crossing the Mozambique Channel drifting on
large vegetation rafts [Horvath et al., 2008; Krause, 2010; Yoder and Yang, 2004].
Madagascar is one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in the world,
underpinned by its high proportion of endemic species and rates of deforestation [Myers et al.,
2000; Mittermeier et al., in press]. The island is among the main priorities for primate
conservation [Harcourt and Thornback, 1990] and is home to over 100 primate species
[Mittermeier et al., in press]. This makes it the country with the second highest primate
species diversity in the world, despite it being only 7 % the size of Brazil, which ranks first
(103 species). Furthermore, it harbours the highest number of threatened primate taxa in any
one country [Mittermeier et al., in press]. Of the 94 taxa that have been assessed for the IUCN
Red List, 41 % are listed as threatened (14 Vulnerable, 17 Endangered, 8 Critically
Endangered) [IUCN, 2009]. In the last decades there have been major taxonomic revisions
within the lemurs of Madagascar, particularly within the nocturnal families Cheirogaleidae
and Lepilemuridae. Between 2000 and 2008, 39 species were newly described and nine other
taxa resurrected [Mittermeier et al., 2008]. This has resulted in the unusual situation that 45 %
of all Malagasy primate species are now Red-Listed as Data Deficient by the IUCN [2009],
by far the highest such figure for any primate habitat country (by comparison, 13 % of all
primates and 15 % of all mammals are Red-Listed as Data Deficient). This situation has led to
increased concern among ecologists and conservationists [Tattersall, 2007]. Many of the
recently described species are only known from single locations. Especially for many of the
small nocturnal Lepilemur and Microcebus species few data are available about distribution,
population densities, habitat requirements or conservation status. The lack of species specific
knowledge makes it impossible to determine the IUCN Red List status and design effective
conservation measures. Since Data Deficient species could well be threatened, they represent
an immediate priority for conservation ecology research [Vi et al., 2009].


2
1.2. Main threats to biodiversity in Madagascar

Madagascars biodiversity is very threatened. Less than 10 % of its primary vegetation
is left [Kaufmann, 2006]. Since the 1970s 33 % of the primary vegetation vanished and
1500 km
2
are lost every year [Moat and Smith, 2007]. Some vegetation types disappear faster
than others. Western dry forest makes up 5.4 % of Madagascars vegetation and decreased by
40 % from 1975 to 2000 [Moat and Smith, 2007]. Anthropogenic pressure includes fires,
slash and burn agriculture (tavy), farming and logging activities [Wells and Andriamihaja,
1997]. Madagascars former president Marc Ravalomanana tripled the protected areas in
Madagascar but in 2009 his government was brought down by city major and former DJ Andy
Rajoelina. The violent coup has led to a very instable situation and low enforcement and has
allowed armed loggers and hunters to intensify environmental destruction [Smith, 2009]. The
disappearance of vegetation also negatively affects the generally poor but rapidly growing
human population: Rain water is not absorbed and floods wash away land, infrastructure and
resources [Vrin, 2003; Wright and Rakotoarisoa, 1997]. To say it with the words of Alison
Jolly: Madagascar is committing environmental suicide [Jolly, 2004, p. 196].

1.3. Sahamalaza- Iles Ramada National Park, northwestern Madagascar

In collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Madagascar
National Parks (MNP), the Lemur Conservation Association (Association Europenne pour
l'Etude et la Conservation des Lmuriens, AEECL) was instrumental in establishing a
UNESCO biosphere reserve and a national protected area in the Sahamalaza region
[Schwitzer et al., 2006]. As part of their "Programme Sahamalaza", a community-based
natural resource management and conservation ecology research programme, in 2004
scientists of AEECL and the universities of Antananarivo and Mahajanga established a field
station in the Ankarafa Forest [Schwitzer et al., 2006], situated on the Sahamalaza Peninsula
within the boundaries of the national park. In order to support habitat protection measures,
several studies have since been conducted on the flagship species of the project, the critically
endangered blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur flavifrons) [Schwitzer et al., 2007a, 2007b].
The Sahamalaza Peninsula can be reached in 2 to 3 days via local bus, local ferry and
pirogue (local boat). In the rainy season it is often inaccessible.
Extreme hunting pressure on wildlife is observed outside the park but inside it seems to
be almost none due to the presence of researchers [Schwitzer, pers. comm.]. However, during


3
May and August 2010 two loggers were found to have killed and roasted a Lepilemur
sahamalazensis (personal observation). Illegal small scale logging activities and fires (either
accidentally or to express disagreement with National Park) are a constant threat to the
habitat.
The lemur community at the study site Ankarafa Forest comprises Eulemur flavifrons,
Lepilemur sahamalazensis, Mirza zaza and an unidentified Cheirogaleus species [Schwitzer,
pers. comm.].

1.4. Goal and aims of the project

The nocturnal species Mirza zaza (Primates: Lemuridea: Cheirogaleidae) is a Data
Deficient nocturnal lemur species. It occurs in northwestern Madagascar and apart from basic
biological and genetic information collected for the description of the species [Kappeler et al.,
2005], a distribution survey [Markolf et al., 2008] and a first estimation of the conservation
status [Roos and Kappeler, 2006] no data are available about the species ecology.
Sahamalaza National Park is the only protected area where M. zaza occurs [Markolf et al.,
2008]. Basic ecological data on M. zaza is needed in order to ensure that ongoing and future
conservation measures in Sahamalaza and elsewhere in the species' distribution range actually
benefit its long-term survival. Furthermore, data about home range size and overlap can
indicate the species space requirements and may assist the Red-Listing of this Data Deficient
lemur species.
Accordingly, the main goal of this dissertation will be to determine features of habitat
and nest sites used by Mirza zaza in order to enable ongoing and future conservation efforts in
Sahamalaza and elsewhere to effectively target the species and to provide information
necessary for the IUCN Red-Listing of the species. Specific aims will be:

1. To determine home range size, overlap and ranging patterns of Mirza zaza in order to
draw conclusions about space requirements and social organization
2. To investigate preferences of M. zaza towards microhabitat characteristics
3. To describe nest characteristics and determine preferences of M. zaza towards
characteristics of nest trees and nest microhabitat
4. To provide information about the general morphology of M. zaza in Ankarafa Forest in
order to compare them to other populations, and to reveal details about their
reproduction


4
5. To make recommendations for the conservation of M. zaza, that can be used by various
local, national and international organizations like AEECL, MNP or IUCN

1.5. Structure of dissertation

I have chosen to write this dissertation in an article-style which includes that the
different, self-contained chapters follow the guidelines of certain journals. Morphology and
reproduction is the topic of the first chapter (section 3) as the information presented gives the
reader a better impression of the species. It is written for submission to Folia Primatologica as
a primate-specific journal. The second chapter (section 4) deals with home range and habitat
use of Mirza zaza and is formatted for submission to Endangered Species Research as a
journal including all wildlife taxa but focusing on conservation. The third chapter (section 5)
investigates the nest, nest sites and nest site utilization and is written for Lemur News which
is freely distributed. However, chapters are not exactly formatted as the required manuscript:
no line numbers and acknowledgements will be added, and tables and figures will be
integrated in the text and numbered throughout the whole dissertation to improve readability.
Only one Abstract is given at the beginning of the whole dissertation which can be adapted
for publication of single chapters. An overall reference list is provided at the end. To avoid
repetition, a general methods section (section 2) is added and single chapters might refer back
to this. Finally, a synopsis with conclusions and future research is given. Recommendations
are outlined at the end of each paper chapter. UK English was chosen for the whole
dissertation even though journal requirements may differ.



5
2. General methods

As methods were applied for all of the chapters, most will be described in this section to
avoid repetition.

2.1. Taxonomy of Mirza zaza

The genus Mirza GRAY, 1870, has been widely recognized as Microcebus (species
name M. coquereli) until Tattersall resurrected it as a separate genus in 1982 [Kappeler et al.,
2005]. Until recently Mirza comprised only one species M. coquereli. In 2005 the second
species northern giant mouse lemur (M. zaza) was described in Kappeler et al. [2005]. Lately,
the presence of a third species was proposed [Gardner and Jasper, 2009] but has not been
confirmed yet.

2.2. Study site

The study took place at Ankarafa Forest, Sahamalaza, northwestern Madagascar, during
the dry season for 10 weeks from the beginning of May until mid of July. Ankarafa Forest is
situated on the Sahamalaza Peninsula, province Mahajanga, within the boundaries of the UN
Biosphere Reserve and Aire Protge Marine et Ctire Sahamalaza Iles Radama (Fig 1).
The national park extends between 1352'S and 1427'S, and 4538'E and 4746'E [Schwitzer
et al., 2007b]. It covers an area of 26,035 ha and includes marine, coastal and terrestrial zones
[Madagascar National Parks, no date]. Sahamalaza is biogeographically located in a transition
zone between the Sambirano evergreen rainforest domain in the north and the western dry
deciduous forest region in the south [Schwitzer and Lork, 2004; Schwitzer, 2005]. The strict
seasonal climate of this zone is represented by a dry and cool season from May to September
and a rainy and hot season from October to April [Schwitzer et al., 2007b]. Mean annual
rainfall is 1600 mm, mean annual temperature 28.0 C and monthly temperatures range from
20.6 C in August to 32.0 C in November [Schwitzer et al., 2007b].
In general the vegetation is not consistent but shows characteristics of the two very
different domains that meet here. Due to traditional slash and burn agriculture and clearance
for cattle herds, only fragments of primary and secondary forest are left that are connected by
savannah areas (Fig. 1) [Schwitzer and Lork, 2004; Schwitzer et al., 2007b].


6
A primary and a secondary forest patch were selected as study sites as the animals were
believed to be present there. The primary forest forest A has been degraded by a forest fire
a few years ago, but is in progress of regeneration [Schwitzer, Seiler, pers. comm.].
Forest B does mainly represent mature secondary forest with a small part of primary
forest. Due to this rather unclear division into primary and secondary forest, I will continue
using the terms forest A and forest B.


7





Figure 1: Ankarafa Forest (above) with the two study sites forest A and forest B and the location of the camp.
The research site is located on the Sahamalaza peninsula (below left) in northwestern Madagascar (below right).
A
B
Camp


8
2.3. Data collection

Two teams were built until 21/06/2010 when the field assistant had to leave. The
principal researcher and one local guide made up one team while the field assistant and the
other field guide were another team. We conducted training to ensure observer reliability
[Martin and Bateson 1993], and the first week of radio-tracking and habitat sampling we
worked all together.
Two weeks at the end of June a very strong wind (called Varatraza, Schwitzer et al.,
2007b) caused many tree falls of trees up to 1.5 m DBH. Due to the associated danger,
especially at night when vision is limited, we had to stop working for several days.

2.3.1 Capturing Mirza zaza

We captured Mirza zaza using 24 to 30 live traps (Tomahawk Live Traps size 12).
Following the advice of experienced guides the traps were placed systematically in two
forests fragments. We baited the traps with banana in the evening and checked in the early
morning [Kappeler et al., 2005]. Because of the winter season nights can get cold. To avoid
too much energy loss of the animals in traps we sometimes controlled traps as early as 9 pm.
The first week we did not capture, hear or encounter any animal. After that, the animals
seemed to learn about the new food source and entered the traps relatively quickly. This
was especially the case during recapture when we caught 12 animals in one week. While
radio-tracking the animals we observed one female always visiting the traps first after
emerging from the nest and finding ways to reach the banana without entering traps (set for
Microcebus). Animals caught first got caught again for up to 5 times. Rats were released
immediately while Mirza zaza was carried to the camp for further procedure. We captured 8
animals in May. All of these could be recaptured in July. Another 4 animals were captured.

2.3.2 Morphology

We pushed the animals in a corner of a trap using clothes to restrain the animals and
anesthetized them briefly with Ketamine (0.01 ml/100 g body mass, 100 mg/ml) [Lahann,
2008]. First we weighed the animal with a standard kitchen scale (precise to 1 g) and sexed it.
Then, small ear biopsies (small cuts of 2 x 2 mm in the outer pinna) were taken with a special
Ear Punch (Kent Scientific Corporation, US) at different parts of the ear pinna for subsequent
identification. Tissue samples are currently analyzed at Hannover University to identify the


9
species, estimate genetic distance and determine relatedness of individuals. Teats and external
opening of the vagina were investigated to determine reproductive status of females
[following Stanger et al., 1995, Appendix 1]. Details about morphometric measurements can
be found in section 3. In preparation of the radio-tracking, an individual ring was cut into in
the fur of the tail for subsequent identification during the night [Kappeler, 1997a].

2.3.3 Radio-tracking and home ranges

Nocturnal species are not easy to study [Eberle and Kappeler, 2004]. Mittermeier et al.,
[2006] described Mirza as being highly active, which makes their identification and
observation difficult in the field. Thus, radio-tracking was used to receive a sufficient amount
of reliable data. Eight animals were fitted with TW3 rubber-coated cable tie radio-collars
(Biotrack Ltd., UK, 3-4 g, max. 2 % of body weight]. All collars were removed at the end of
the study. We used a TR-4 receiver (Telonics Inc., USA; frequency range 150.545
150.969 MHz) and flexible Yagi antenna (Biotrack Ltd., UK) to locate the animals during the
night. Home ranges were determined by nightly follows of focal animals [Pimley et al., 2005].
Two teams followed the animals 6 days per week during two night shifts (18:00-0:00 and
00:00 to 05:00). Before 18:00 and after 5:00 nests were observed. We changed the focal
animal after approximately 2 hours of observation in order to receive a representative sample
of each animal over the whole field period. Methods for investigating home ranges are
outlines in section 4. Incremental area analyses for the all home ranges can be found in
Appendix 2.

2.3.4 Habitat and nest

During nightly follows, trees used by Mirza zaza were marked with a laminated number
and a thumbtack every 15 minutes, unless the animal stayed in the same tree.
Trees were described the next day by the variables tree species, tree height, diameter at
breast height (DBH), canopy size, number of lianas and number of connected trees
[Ruperti 2007; Schwitzer et al., 2007b]. The microhabitat was assessed using the point-
centred quarter method [Ganzhorn, 2003]. A used tree served as the centre point. The four
compass directions joining at the centre tree divided the microhabitat into four quadrants. The
distance to the nearest tree in each of the quadrant as well as the above-mentioned variables of
the four trees were measured. We always distinguished between large (10 cm DBH) and
small tree species (5 9.9 cm DBH) (Ruperti, 2007), except for section 3 where only large


10
trees were considered. Additionally, the canopy cover was measured by walking 2.5 m away
from the centre into northwest and vertically taking a photo of the canopy applying the same
zoom for each photo. I used Adobe Photoshop to calculate the percentage cover [Ganzhorn,
2003; Ruperti, 2007]. A 5 x 5 m plot was laid into the northwest quadrant adjacent to the tree.
Presence of cattle faeces, evidence of fire and tree stumps cut by humans was collected in this
plot to assess human disturbance [Ruperti, 2007; Schwitzer et al., 2007b]. Details about the
variables can be found in Appendix 3. The same variables were collected for random trees
and their microhabitat with a random tree as the centre point. Random trees were selected by
taking the minimum and maximum latitude and longitude of the groups respective home
range and randomly computing locations within that area. We walked to the point using a
GPS device (Garmin GPS 60) and identified the nearest tree (bamboo > 3 cm DBH or tree
> 5 cm DBH) to that point which consequently served as a random tree.
Every 5 minutes we recorded the height of the animal, if it used a large (10 cm
diameter) or small tree (<10 cm) or a bamboo, and the support type (trunk, branch, leaves,
fork, liana) [Crompton and Andau, 1987; Martin and Bateson, 1993; Ganzhorn, 1995]. The
behaviour (moving, resting, feeding/foraging, grooming, playing, other) was noted and
feeding events were observed ad libitum [Martin and Bateson, 1993; Biebouw, 2009].
Descriptions of variables can be found in Appendix 3. If the animal was lost for longer than
15 minutes, we collected data the next time it was encountered. All height-related variables
were estimated by the researcher and the guide, and the mean of the estimates was taken
[Ruperti, 2007]. In retroperspective, the intensity of light was received by looking at moon
phases stored by the GPS device. The variable is described in Appendix 3. Details about nest
variables are given in section 5.

2.3.6 Analysis

Analysis and statistical tests performed are described separately in the following
chapters. Comparisons of morphology between different Mirza zaza populations and M.
coquereli in Kirindy have been performed using a one-way t-test and means from Kappeler et
al. [2005]. Prof. Kappeler kindly promised to send original data so that a parametric t-test can
be applied.


11
For submission as a manuscript of original research as required by the journal
FOLIA PRIMATOLOGICA


3. Morphology and reproduction of the northern giant mouse lemur
Mirza zaza in Sahamalaza National Park, northwestern Madagascar

Johanna Rode
Nocturnal Primate Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

Key words
Mirza zaza, Madagascar, seasonal reproduction, testes size, promiscuous

3.1. Introduction

If direct observations are difficult to obtain as it is the case for many nocturnal primate
species, size dimorphism, testes size, post copulative mechanisms and spatial distribution of
the different sexes are often used as indirect indicators of primate mating systems [Schwab,
2000]. While monogamous species are morphologically characterised by a lack of sexual
dimorphism and small testes size in males, physically competing males of polygynous species
are bigger than females but also have relatively small testes [Schwab, 2000; Harcourt et al.,
1981; Kenagy and Trombulak, 1986]. In contrast, species with a promiscuous mating system
(each sex mates with several individuals of the other sex, Bearder, 1999] do not show
intensive sexual dimorphism but have relatively large testes and males make use of
postcopulatory sperm plugs that seal the female vagina after mating [Schwab, 2000]. Large
testes and accordingly more sperm [Moller, 1998] are related to intensive sperm competition
and mating with several females [Kappeler, 1997a]. Body mass and testes size of promiscuous
species increase towards the onset of the mating season [Kappeler, 1997a; Schmid and
Kappeler, 1998].
In comparison to haplorrhini primate species, most strepsirrhines do not show marked
sexual dimorphism despite the existence of various mating system [Kappeler, 1990; Pochron
and Wright, 2002]. Furthermore, the harsh environment and seasonality of food in
Madagascar [Wright 1999] constrain most species to a short mating season that does not
allow males to monopolise receptive females [Ridley, 1986; Richard and Dewar, 1991;
Kappeler, 1991; Young et al., 1990; Harcourt et al., 1981].


12
The nocturnal strepsirrhini species Mirza zaza, Family Cheirogaleidae, was
distinguished from M. coquereli as a unique species in 2005 [Kappeler et al., 2005; taxonomy
see section 2.1]. M. zaza is a squirrel-sized nocturnal lemur that lives in the dry deciduous
forests of northwestern Madagascar. Several morphological variables differ between M. zaza
and M. coquereli, including a smaller overall size, but slightly larger testes [Kappeler et al.,
2005]. The geographical distribution of M. zaza seems to be limited by two large rivers, the
Maeverano River in the south and the Mahavavy in the north [Markolf et al., 2008]. Large
rivers are suggested to serve as species boundaries and the Sambirano River, crossing the
currently assumed distribution of M. zaza, could be another boundary [Craul et al., 2007].
Although an individual from Sahamalaza in the south of Sambirano was genetically tested as
M. zaza it could have morphological differences from the reference population of Ambato, in
the north of Sambirano. Due to large testes and loud oestrus calls M. zaza is suggested to have
a highly promiscuous mating system [Kappeler et al., 2005]. Their mating season is believed
to fall into July and August [Kappeler et al., 2005]. However, animals kept at the Duke
University Primate Centre, on which several behavioural and physiological studies were
conducted, cycled throughout the year and reproduced aseasonally [Stanger et al., 1995].
The aim of this study is to describe and compare the morphology of Mirza zaza from
Sahamalaza peninsula to M. zaza from Ambato and to test predictions about their
reproduction. Assuming that their mating season is restricted to July and August, testes size
and body mass of males should increase towards the end of the study that was conducted from
May to July. We should observe animals mating and capture females in oestrus in July. We
expect to only capture sub-adults with weights typical for animals born in October the
previous year but no smaller animals.

3.2. Methods

Details about the study site can be found in section 2.2. General proceedings of
capturing, anesthetizing, and material used are described in section 2.3. Animals were
captured in May and July in order to collect data before and during the mating season.
Standard morphometric measurements taken of adult Mirza zaza included body mass,
body length, tail length, head length and width, canine height, ear length and width, hind foot,
hand, upper and lower hind- and forelimb, testes length and width and state of the external
opening of the vagina [following Schmid and Kappeler, 1994; Stanger et al., 1995, details see
Appendix 1]. A standard tape measure and electronic calliper were used. Testes volume was


13
calculated with the formula for a regular ellipsoid V = 1/6 * (W
2
L) where W was the average
width of both testes and L was the length of the longest testis [Kappeler, 1997b]. Relative
testes size was calculated as the mean testes volume divided by mean body mass [Schwab,
2000]. Using the data set of 18 strepsirrhines in Kappeler [1997b] I calculated the regression
line y = 1.7x + 80.5, whereas y is the testes volume (mm
3
) and x is the body mass (g). I used
this equation to calculate the expected testes volume for M. zaza. It should be noted that
Stanger et al. [1995] calculated testes volume as one ellipsoid of both testes, while Kappeler
[1997b] calculated the volume for each testis and added both. Age was classified according to
body weight with 150-200 g juvenile, 200-250 g sub-adult and above 250 g adult [Kappeler et
al., 2005]. Mean of the measurements of both captures were compared to means from
Kappeler et al. [2005] for M. zaza animals from Ambato peninsula north of Sahamalaza
[1325'S, 4829'E] and M. coquereli animals from Kirindy national park in the south
[2040'S, 4439'E]. If not indicated differently all measurements are in mm. As mating was
predicted at the end of the study period, body weight, relative testes volume and the state of
the vagina of adult animals were compared between the first capture in May and the recapture
mid of July [Stanger et al., 1995; Schwab, 2000]. External injuries as a result of fighting were
checked for males [Kappeler, 1997a].
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 17.0. All body measurements were
normally distributed (One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness-of-Fit Test; Dytham,
2003). Since there was no difference in variables found between sexes using t-tests, animals
were combined and one-way t-tests computed to compare variables to means of animals from
Ambato and Kirindy [Dytham, 2003]. Repeated measures ANOVA was used for the
difference in weight, testes volume and relative testes volume between the first and second
capture [Dytham, 2003]. Significance level was set to P = 0.05.

3.3. Results

We captured eight animals in May and fitted them with radio collars. We recaptured
them in July. Four additional individuals were trapped at the end of the study (Table1).







14
Table 1: Identification codes, sex and age of all individuals captured at the
given dates in Ankarafa forest research station in May and July 2010.
ID Sex Age 1. capture 2. capture
M1 male adult 16/05/2010 11/07/2010
M2 male adult 18/05/2010 09/07/2010
F1 female adult 19/05/2010 09/07/2010
M3 male sub-adult 19/05/2010 10/07/2010
F2 female adult 22/05/2010 11/07/2010
M4 male adult 27/05/2010 18/07/2010
M5 male adult 28/05/2010 11/07/2010
F3 female sub-adult 29/05/2010 10/07/2010
M6 male adult 10/07/2010
F4 female juvenile 10/07/2010
M7 male sub-adult 13/07/2010
F5 female adult 17/07/2010

No difference in sex was found between weight or any morphometric measurements of
adult animals (Table 2). Compared to measurements of Mirza zaza from Ambato and M.
coquereli from Kirindy [Kappeler et al., 2005], we found several differences in morphometric
measurements (Fig. 2).


Figure 2: Proportional differences (in %) between the Sahamalaza population and Mirza zaza
from Ambato and M. coquereli from Kirindy, respectively. The Sahamalaza population served as a
reference and thus corresponds to 0 %. Significant differences of one-way t-tests are indicated by
an asterisk.
body mass
body length
tail length
head length
head width
canine height
ear length
hind foot
femur
tibia
humerus
radius
testes

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*


15

Table 2: Descriptive statistics (mean and SD) for 18 morphometric variables of adult male (M) and female (F) Mirza zaza from Sahamalaza National Park.
Combined sex Males Females
Median Mean SD N Median Mean SD N Median Mean SD N
Weight [g] 284 283.13 17.65 8 290.3 283.92 20.81 6 280.8 280.75 0.35 2
HeadBody [cm] 22 22.31 0.75 8 22.3 22.5 0.77 6 21.8 21.75 0.35 2
Tail [cm] 30 30.28 0.54 8 30.1 30.17 0.54 6 30.6 30.63 0.53 2
Head L 56.8 56.23 1.34 7 56.2 55.92 1.49 5 57.0 57.03 0.28 2
Head W 32.8 33.10 2.17 7 32.9 33.44 2.14 5 32.3 32.26 2.8 2
Canine L 4.3 4.01 0.67 7 3.9 3.86 0.76 5 4.4 4.38 0.11 2
Canine W 2.5 2.34
a
0.69 4 2.6 2.34 0.84 3 2.3 2.34 . 1
EarL 27.1 27.08 1.38 8 27.1 26.98 1.46 6 27.4 27.37 1.57 2
EarW 16.0

16.08
a
0.77 8 15.9 15.91 0.82 6 16.6 16.56 0.48 2
Foot 57.6 57.11 2 8 57.2 56.69 2.1 6 58.4 58.37 1.35 2
Hand 33.6

33.09
a
2.87 8 33.6 32.61 3.17 6 34.5 34.53 1.38 2
Femur 60.9 60.71 4.49 8 60.9 61.24 4.57 6 59.1 59.11 5.44 2
Tibia 70.9 71.27 3.35 8 71.6 71.84 3.62 6 69.6 69.55 2.26 2
Humerus 47.5 47.37 2.43 8 48.0 47.82 2.38 6 46.0 46.04 2.88 2
Radius 44.1 44.85 2.99 8 44.1 44.38 2.46 6 46.3 46.27 5.2 2
Testes L 29.0 27.31 4.16 6
Testes W 31.7 30.33
a
6.05 6
Testes V [mm
3
] 11791.9 3545.02
a
1840.63 6

Asterisks mark significant differences to means of animals from Ambato [Kappeler et al. 2005]. L = length, W = width, V = volume. SD
= standard deviation of the mean.
a
= not tested against Kappeler et al. [2005]



16
We observed Mirza zaza mating three times mid-June. F5 captured in July showed a
swollen, pink and wrinkled vagina which is typical for met-oestrus [Stanger et al., 1995]. The
average weight of the two sub-adult females F1 and F3 were 207.5 g (sd 7.78, n = 2 captures)
and 214 g (sd 8.49, n = 2 captures) while the sub-adult M7 weighed 231 g and the juvenile F4
144 g. F2 and F4 shared a nest and were believed to be mother and daughter. Although F4
seemed to roam independently from the mother, enlarged teats of F4 suggest ongoing
lactating. Compared to data from Duke University Primate Centre the two female sub-adults
should be between 165 and 179 days (F1) and between 186 and 221 days (F2) old at their
capture in May. M7 should be around 242 days in July. Calculating back, birth should have
taken place between mid of November and end of December the previous year. The juvenile
F4 should be around 80 days at her capture and thus born in April. Even though the juvenile
was very small and the mother was still lactating, it seemed to forage independently. The
mother was observed alone as well as in company of the juvenile during the night.
There was no difference found in the weight, absolute or relative testes volume between
the first capture in May and the second capture in July (weight: F = 1.103, P = 0.29; absolute
testes volume: F = 3.072, P = 0.16; relative testes volume: F = 3.014, P = 0.16). In all males
but one the relative testes volume was higher in July (Table 3). Testes volume in general
varied greatly between individuals. Mean relative testes volume of all male adults in July was
29.77 mm
3
/g [sd 9.67, n = 6]. Compared to the expected value of 987 mm
3
average testes
volume of all adult Mirza zaza in July was 8336.23 mm
2
, more than 8 times higher.

Table 3: Weight, absolute and relative testes volume (testes volume divided by body mass) at the first and the
second capture of 5 male individuals of Mirza zaza. Median, mean and standard deviation of the mean are given.
ID
Weight 1
[g]
Weight 2
[g]
Testes
Volume 1
[mm
3
]
Testes
Volume 2
[mm
3
]
Rel. testes
volume 1
[mm
3
/g]
Rel. testes
volume 2
[mm
3
/g]

M1 294 318 990.57 3428.95 3.37 10.78
M2 256 247 9747.99 7309.94 38.08 29.59
M3 295 280 2714.95 9310.51 9.20 33.25
M4 264 269 6120.91 9225.01 23.19 34.29
M5 299 287 6475.69 9433.81 21.66 32.87
Median 294 280 6120.91 9225.01 21.66 32.87
Mean 281.60 280.20 5210.02 7741.64 19.10 28.16
sd 20.01 25.99 3429.79 2564.70 13.50 9.87





17
3.4. Discussion

Mirza zaza was described as being different from M. coquereli in 2005. Except for body
length M. zaza showed significantly smaller means for all test variables. The larger testes size
was not significant [Kappeler et al., 2005]. One animal from Sahamalaza Peninsula was
captured and genetically tested to be M. zaza [Schwitzer, pers. comm.]. In this study animals
from Sahamalaza were compared to means from animals in Kirindy [Kappeler et al., 2005],
and all significant results suggest smaller body measurements but bigger testes. This conforms
to previous differences found between M. zaza and M. coquereli [Kappeler et al., 2005].
However, the animals captured in Sahamalaza for this study also showed significant
differences in several variables to the population of M. zaza in Ambato. They had a smaller
body and smaller extremities, while the tail was longer and head and testes were larger than in
Ambato. Although differences can stem from inter-observer differences between the studies
or small sample size, differences found in several variables lead us to conclude that the
Sahamalaza population differs morphologically from Ambato population.
Several authors emphasised the importance of large rivers as geographic boundaries in
Madagascar [Craul et al., 2007; Olivieri et al., 2007]. Craul et al. [2007], who examined
phylogenetic relationships within Lepilemur, suggested an eight Inter-River-System that
separates the regions north and south from Sambirano river. This would split the areas of
Sahamalaza and Ambato. In respect to Lepilemur this border acts like a barrier, with L.
dorsalis in the north and L. sahamalazaensis and L. mittermeieri in the south accepted as full
species [Craul et al., 2007; Andriaholinirina et al., 2006; Rabarivola et al., 2006]. Yoder et al.
[2000] stress that only a combination of physical, historical, and biological differences
between populations should lead to a species classification. Additionally, several authors are
concerned about the steep increase of lemur species in the last decades, which makes it hard
for conservationists to define priorities and target their efforts [e.g. Tattersall, 2007]. Genetic
samples of the Sahamalaza animals are currently analysed and may clarify matters. However,
we suggest undertaking further surveys to avoid spotty sampling.
In order to prepare for high activity and sperm competition during the short mating
season promiscuous lemur species like Microcebus murinus [Schmid and Kappeler, 1998],
Mirza coquereli [Kappeler, 1997b] or Galago moholi [Pullen et al., 2000] show an increase of
male body weight and testes volume. In M. zaza no significant increase in weight, relative or
absolute testes volume could be found towards the onset of the presumed mating season. One
explanation could be unfortunate sampling timing if mating already took place in June, the



18
middle of the study. Combination of data available from literature and this study rather
suggests that mating is not restricted to a discrete season but can take place all year round
(Table 4). Interbirth intervals between successfully raised litters in captivity ranged between 7
and 15 months [Stanger et al., 1995]. In lemurs, seasonal reproduction may be promoted by
seasonal variations in food availability. M. zaza was observed to feed on the sugary secretions
of the larvae of Homopteran Flatidae in the dry season [Rode, 2010]. This and the geographic
situation of Sahamalaza between the dry western forests and more humid Sambirano region,
resulting in less trees shedding leaves, might allow a more flexible timing of reproduction in
M. zaza. The juvenile F4 found in this study clearly grew up during the dry season but seemed
to be in a very good health.

Table 4: Summary of suspected birth and mating season of Mirza zaza. If only birth or only mating time was
known, the missing variable was calculated using the gestation time of approximately 3 months. Methods are
mentioned to clarify how conclusions about mating season were drawn.
Birth Mating Method Source

December to February
September to
November
Estimated from weights of
sub-adults
Pages, 1980
September Early June
Pregnancy of wild-captured
female
Stanger et al., 1995
March, September December, June
Observations of captive
animals under Madagascar
time
Stanger et al., 1995
September June Observation of mating This study
October July
Capture of female in met-
oestrus
This study
November/December
and April
August/September
and January
Estimated from weights of
sub-adults (n=3) and a
juvenile (n=1)
This study
a


a
Weights from captivity for comparison in this study stem from only two sets of twins. Although
twins might be lighter than singletons, food supply in captivity might be better and primates are often
overweight [Schwitzer and Kaumanns, 2003]. Accordingly, estimated birth months should be treated
with caution.


As nocturnal predators mainly rely on sound for hunting, living in groups is not
advantageous for prey species and thus, many nocturnal primates are solitary during their
nightly activity [Kappeler, 1997c]. However, a variety of social systems exist in nocturnal
strepsirrhini, e.g. dispersed pairs [e.g. Cheirogaleus medius, Fietz, 1999b] or dispersed
promiscuous groups [e.g. Microcebus ravelobensis, Weidt et al., 2004] that forage solitarily



19
but reunite during the day. Information presented in Table 5 indicates a promiscuous mating
system in Mirza zaza except for the lack of sexual dimorphism.


Table 5: Summary of morphological and behavioural characteristics of Mirza zaza that give an indication of the
mating system. Examples of other species exhibiting the respective characteristics are given.
Characteristic
of M. zaza
Source Mating system Similar species source

No sexual
dimorphism
This study;
Stanger et
al., 1995
Monogamous,
polyandrous; but
most strepsirrhines
regardless of
mating system
Aotus spp.
Cheirogaleus major
Kappeler, 1997c
Fietz, 1999a
Estrous call Stanger-
Hall,
unpublished
data
Promiscuous Mirza, microcebus
Daubentonia
Stanger, 1993
Sterling, 1993;
Stanger and
Macedonia 1994
Large relative
testes
This study;
Stanger et
al., 1995;
Kappeler
1997a
Promiscuous,
polygynous with
sperm competition
Microcebus cf
myoxinus
Mirza coquereli
Microcebus murinus
Schwab, 2000

Kappeler, 1997b
Fietz, 1999a
Copulatory
plug
Stanger et
al., 1995
Promiscuous,
polygynous with
sperm competition
Microcebus cf
myoxinus
Microcebus murinus
Schwab 2000

Eberle and Kappeler,
2004

Kappeler [1990] suggested that lemurs of Madagascar may be more selected for speed
and agility than strength and body size, which is mostly used for indicating sexual
dimorphism [Leutenegger, 1978]. However, information about spatial distribution of the sexes
does not necessarily support a promiscuous mating system in Mirza zaza [Rode, 2010].
Details can be found in section 3. Compared to M. coquereli, where injuries are more
common in males compared to females in the mating season [Schwab, 2000; Kappeler,
1997a], sperm plugs, oestrus calls and lack in injuries in M. zaza emphasise a higher
importance of sperm competition and higher promiscuity. Especially striking is the enormous
testes volume of M. zaza. Using the width of both testes at their broadest point to calculate
volume, mean testes volume for this study of 15.483 cm
3
was very similar to testes volume of
13.63 cm
3
in captivity [Stanger et al., 1995]. This corresponds to 8 times the volume normally
expected for strepsirrhines [Kappeler, 1997a]. Compared from available data for other primate
species [Harcourt et al., 1981; Kenagy and Trombulak, 1986; Kappeler 1997b; Schwab, 2000]



20
M. zaza has the largest testes among primates and values rather range among typical values
for some rodent species [Kenagy and Trombulak, 1986].

3.5. Conclusions

1. If genetic analyses point to a difference between Mirza zaza in Sahamalaza and M.
zaza north from the Sambirano River additional to the data presented here, we
recommend further surveys and the inclusion of several methods to describe a new
taxon on species or subspecies level.
2. Mirza zaza in the wild is not restricted to a short mating season but reproduces
throughout the year.
3. Morphological and behavioural data, especially large testes size, suggests that Mirza
zaza shows a highly promiscuous mating system.
4. Mirza zaza has the relatively largest testes among primates.



21
For submission as a manuscript of original research as required by the journal
ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH

4. Conservation implications of home range and habitat use of the
northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza, in Sahamalaza, northwestern
Madagascar

Johanna Rode
Nocturnal Primate Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK


KEY WORDS: Mirza zaza, Madagascar, home range, microhabitat use, reforestation,
conservation

4.1. Introduction

Madagascar is one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in the world,
underpinned by its high proportion of endemic species and high rates of deforestation (Myers
et al. 2000, Mittermeier et al. in press). The last years have been characterized by an
enormous increase of lemur species diversity. Between 2000 and 2008, 39 species were newly
described and 9 other taxa resurrected (Mittermeier et al. 2008). The lack of species-specific
knowledge makes it impossible to determine IUCN Red List status, resulting in 45 % of all
Malagasy primate species being Red-Listed as Data Deficient (IUCN 2009). More than 85 %
of the Data Deficient lemur species are nocturnal (IUCN 2009), which might partly be due to
difficulties inherent in studying them (Eberle & Kappeler 2004). The situation has led to
increased concern among ecologists and conservationists (Tattersall 2007) since a thorough
understanding of the biology and ecology of species is needed to design effective
conservation measures (Schwab & Ganzhorn 2004, Merker et al. 2005, Schwitzer et al.
2007b).
This study provides information about home range size, home range overlap and
microhabitat use of a least known nocturnal lemur, the northern giant mouse lemur Mirza
zaza. A home range is generally defined as the area repeatedly traversed by an animal
(Kenward 2001, p. 208). Home range patterns have been used to define the rather elusive
social organisation of primate species (e.g. Harcourt & Nash 1986, Mller 1998) while



22
microhabitat use has widely been applied to investigate competition between sympatric
species, e.g. in different lemur communities (Rendings et al. 2003, Lahann 2008) or desert
rodents (Price 1978). Information about home range use and habitat requirements however is
also crucial for conservation activities (Merker et al. 2005, Neilson et al. 2006, Schwitzer et
al. 2007b). Home range sizes give an indication about the species space requirement which
should be incorporated in habitat management plans (Crompton & Andau 1986). For different
species like Dians tarsier (Tarsius dianae, Merker et al. 2005) or the Hawaiian bird 'Elepaio
(Chasiempis sandwichensis, VanderWerf 1993) it was found that home range size increases in
lower quality habitat e.g. in secondary forests due to the animals need to find sufficient
resources. Microhabitat preferences can be used to model the species distribution and
abundance (Rendings et al. 2003, Chouteau 2004) and help to give recommendations for
effective conservation measures as knowledge about importance of certain microhabitat
variables can help to manage endangered populations more effectively (Crompton & Andau
1986, Rendings et al. 2003, Chouteau 2004). Preferences are assumed if use intensity of
certain microhabitat variables differs from that of generally available microhabitat
(Adrianasolo et al. 2006, Neilson et al. 2006), or if used variables do not co-vary with
variations between different habitat types (Schwitzer et al. 2007b, Adrianasolo et al. 2006).
The northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza, Family Cheirogeleidae, is one of the
nocturnal lemur species for which detailed ecological data are lacking. It lives in the
northwestern deciduous lowland forests of Madagascar up to the transition zone to the
Sambirano evergreen rainforest domain in the north (Kappeler et al. 2005, Markolf et al.
2008). Due to a highly fragmented range of 15,000 km
2
(IUCN 2009) the species is very
likely to be threatened (Markolf et al. 2008). The only population estimates so far yielded
the highest encounter rates in degraded forests with a high number of mango trees (Mangifera
indica, Family Anacardiaceae), the fruits of which may be beneficial to Mirza zaza (Markolf
et al. 2008, Mittermeier pers. comm.). Apart from this, nothing is known about the ecological
requirements of M. zaza. Western dry forest is one of the forest types declining the most
quickly in Madagascar and due to ongoing threats to remaining and already heavily
fragmented forests where M. zaza occurs (Schwitzer and Lork 2004, Schwitzer et al. 2007b)
information on its ecological needs are required to design effective conservation plans.
In order to facilitate the planning of conservation measures and provide information that
could help to clarify the uncertain status of Mirza zaza I address three main questions. First,
what are group and individual home range size and overlap of M. zaza? Such data can be used
to estimate the total population size in Sahamalaza and the species entire range. Second, how



23
does M. zaza use its habitat in terms of height and position in trees? Third, what are
microhabitat requirements of M. zaza?

4.2. Methods

Study site and capturing. Please refer to section 2 for details and a map of the study
site, for capturing and handling of the animals.
Data collection. Data collection of light variables and tree and microhabitat variables is
described in section 2.3. Radio-tracking was used to follow the animals during the night (see
section 2.3.3). We aimed for 15 minutes interval between GPS location of the focal animal
(Harris et al. 1990) but due to erratic encounters and regular loss of the animal we also
collected data after shorter intervals (Schwitzer, Nekaris pers. comm.). Close triangulation
was applied in some cases. We used a Garmin GPS 60. We did not use locations with a lower
precision than 15 m and mean precision was 8 m. Home ranges were calculated as 100 %
Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) and 95 % fixed kernel with smoothing multiplier = 1 and
matrix set to the number of cells (n = 40). MCP draws a line around the outmost locations of
an area to build a polygon (Kenward 2001). Even though this method is known to include
areas which might have never been visited by the animal and thus might overestimate the
home range (Kenward 2001, Pimley et al. 2005), it was chosen for better comparability as it is
used in many ecological studies (Harris et al. 1990). 95% kernel method depends on the use
intensity of different areas. Different centres of activity are possible, excursions of the animal
are excluded and thus, home range estimates are more accurate (Kenward 2001, Pimley et al.
2005). Each nest site used by the animals was included only once as we controlled the nest
sites every day and wanted to avoid an overrepresentation of these areas. Group home ranges
referrs to home ranges of one nest group. Home range size and overlap were analysed with
RANGES 8.5 (Anatrack Ltd., UK). The home range size for several animals did not
asymptote. This can be the case if animals shift their home ranges or simply when not enough
locations have been sampled (Harris et al. 1990).
Data analysis. Differences in height classes used by the animals between forests and
between the first and second half of the night (before and after midnight respectively) were
calculated with a Pearsons chi-square test while influence on light intensity was calculated
using a Kruskal Wallis test. Preferences towards habitat were investigated by comparing used
and random trees as well as used and random microhabitat (Adrianasolo et al. 2006, Neilson
et al. 2006). Random trees and microhabitats were additionally compared between forests. If



24
differences were found I investigated if used habitat fluctuated as well. If not, this was taken
as an indication that the animals have preferences in respect to this variable as only generalists
are expected to co-vary with the habitat structure and to use the available resources
indiscriminately (Adrianasolo et al. 2006, Schwitzer et al. 2007b). As none of the habitat
variables were normally distributed, differences between used and random trees as well as
between used and random microhabitat were calculated with non-parametric Kruskal Wallis
tests. Four Mann-Whitney U tests (two-tailed) were used as post hoc tests. According to
Bonferroni correction significance level was set to P = 0.0125 (Cabin & Mitchell 2000).
Species preferences were investigated by computing Pearsons chi-square tests. For this test
the most frequently used trees species were selected (between 4 and 11 species) in order to
avoid more than 20 % of the expected counts being lower than 5 (Dytham 2003). Species
preferences could not be investigated for small used and random trees because of low sample
size. All statistical tests were performed with SPSS 17.0 and followed Dytham (2003).

4.3. Results

We captured 12 animals and radio-collared 8 of them (Table 6). These 8 individuals
stemmed from three nest groups. In two groups all individuals were radio-collared while only
one individual was radio-collared in group 2, which consisted of this animal, a juvenile and
occasionally an unidentified adult. Details about the other four individuals can be found in
Rode (2010).

Table 6: Mirza zaza captured in May and July 2010. Identification code, stable nest group the animal was
belonging to and total number of waypoints (GPS locations taken during nightly follows) are given. Total
numbers of waypoints include nest waypoints while nest waypoints were listed separately.
Nest
group
Focal
individual
Sex
Reproductive
age
Radio-tracked
Total
waypoints
Nest
waypoints

From To

1 M1 male adult 20/05/2010 08/07/2010 19 1
1 M2 male adult 26/05/2010 09/07/2010 12 1
1 F1 female sub-adult 25/05/2010 09/07/2010 80 1
1 M3 male adult 27/05/2010 10/07/2010 19 1
2 F2 female adult 26/05/2010 11/07/2010 14 3
3 M4 male adult 27/05/2010 13/07/2010 83 3
3 M5 male adult 28/05/2010 12/07/2010 49 3
3 F3 female sub-adult 28/05/2010 13/07/2010 90 3





25
Group home ranges
The MCP method yielded group home range sizes of 0.97 ha and 2.34 ha for group 1
and 3 respectively, whereas the 95 % kernel method yielded 0.52 ha and 1.59 ha respectively.
Since these groups lived in different forests there was no overlap. The home range of F2 (the
single collared individual of group 2 and thus regarded as a separate nest group here), as
calculated using the MCP method, overlapped with 14 % of nest group 1s home range, while
the home range of nest group 1 overlapped with 7 % of F2s home range (Fig. 2). Using the
95% kernel method there was no overlap between nest group 1 and F2.


Figure 2: Home range overlap between nest group 1
and individual F2, using MCP method.

Individual home ranges
The MCP method gave individual home range sizes of 1.28 ha while the 95% kernel
method gave 1.02 ha (Table 7). Mean individual home ranges increased when ranges that did
not asymptote were excluded. There were differences between individuals but no consistent
differences between sexes. Individual home ranges calculated with MCP overlapped to a high
extent (Fig. 3) but less when calculated with 95 % kernel (Table 8, Fig. 4).





26

Table 7: Individual home ranges for 8 animals of Mirza zaza,
as calculated using MCP and 95 % kernel method.
a
= home
range size of animal did not asymptote and thus may be not
representative. To account for this, a mean without these
animals was calculated as well.
Home range (ha)
ID 100 % MCP 95 % kernel
M1 0.58
a
0.44
a

M2 0.51
a
0.28
a

F1 0.84 0.31
M3 0.63
a
0.57
a

F2 1.99
a
1.58
a

M4 1.92 1.82
M5 2.21
a
2.20
F3 1.55 0.95
Mean SD 1.28 0.71 1.02 0.75
Mean SD
(excluding
a
) 1.44 0.55 1.32 0.85
Male mean SD 1.17 0,82 0.95 0.63
Female mean SD 1.46 0,58 1.06 0.88



Figure 3: Individual home ranges for groups 1, 2 and 3 in two forests A and B, and overlap, using MCP method.
Nest sites are indicated.



27

Figure 4: Individual home ranges for groups 1, 2 and 3 in two forests A and B, and overlap, using 95 % kernel
method. Nest sites are indicated.


Table 8: Home range overlap between individuals of group 1 and 3 respectively, as calculated with MCP and 95
% kernel method. Percentages show how much the individuals in the table rows overlap with the individuals of
the table columns.
Group 1 Group 3
Percentage overlap between MCP home ranges
M1 M2 F1 M3 M4 M5 F3
M1 58 90 75 M4 95 72
M2 65 98 74 M5 82 65
F1 62 60 67 F3 89 92
M3 69 60 90
Percentage overlap between kernel home ranges
M1 M2 F1 M3 M4 M5 F3
M1 37 49 44 M4 91 51
M2 59 46 69 M5 75 43
F1 70 41 42 F3 100 99
M3 35 34 23






28
Support type and strata used
The animals were found on median height of 7 m (range 0-25 m, n = 326) (Fig. 5). They
were observed at heights of 1 m or lower on several occasions. There was no difference in
used height classes between forests (Z = -1.721, P = 0.085) and between the first and the
second part of the night (Z = -0.311, P = 0.756), and also no influence of light intensity on use
of height classes (Kruskal Wallis test = 1.255, P = 0.869). On most occasions we saw Mirza
zaza on branches (45.3 %) or tree trunks (28.4 %). They were seen less often in the leaves
(12.7 %). The rest of the time we observed them on lianas and forks.


Figure 5: Percentage (%) of height classes used by 8 individuals Mirza
zaza in forest A and B during nocturnal activity. N = 326.

Comparison between used and random trees, and used and random microhabitat
During their nocturnal activity Mirza zaza used more big trees and fewer small trees and
bamboo in both forests compared to the composition of random points in the forest (Fig. 6).
There were significantly fewer big trees and more small trees among random trees compared
to trees used by the animals (
2
= 19.38, P < 0.001).





29


Figure 6: Percentage of tree types used by Mirza zaza compared
to random trees.

Used large trees in forest B had significantly higher DBH, larger canopy diameter and
higher connectivity than random trees (Table 9). Large trees in Forest A and small trees in
both forests showed no difference between variables. In respect to the microhabitat, used
microhabitat (large trees) was significantly more interconnected in forest B and used small
trees had a smaller canopy diameter compared to random microhabitat (Table 10). In forest A,
both large trees and small trees showed a smaller distance to the centre tree in used
microhabitat compared to random microhabitat.

Table 9: Medians for 5 variables of used and random trees in two forests A and B. Empty cells indicate where
no data were available. Significance level was set to P < 0.0125 and indicated by p < 0.05
(
*
)
, p < 0.01 **, p <
0.001 ***.
Median

Used A Random A Used B Random B
Height of large trees (m) 12.00 12.00 12.00 13.00
Height of small trees (m) 6.00 7.25 9.00 8.00
DBH of large trees (cm) 17.63 16.62 18.78
(
*
)
15.28
DBH of small trees (cm) 7.32 6.89 7.00 6.90
Canopy diameter of large trees (m) 6.00 5.88 6.00** 5.00
Canopy diameter of small trees (m) 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50
Lianas of large trees (no.) 2 2 2
Lianas of small trees (no.) 1 2 1
Connectivity of large trees (m) 3 4*** 2
Connectivity of small trees (m) 2 2 1
N large trees
55
DBH: n = 164
Height and
canopy diameter:
n = 65
45 228
N small trees
15
DBH: n = 150
Height and
canopy diameter:
n = 63
11 232
Used
n = 73
Random
n = 52



30
Table 10: Medians for 7 variables of used and random microhabitat in two forests A and B. Empty cells indicate
where no data were available. Significance level was set to P < 0.0125 and indicated by p < 0.05
(
*
)
, p < 0.01 **,
p < 0.001 ***.
Median
Used A Random A Used B Random B
Height of large trees (m) 12.50 12.00 12.50
Height of small trees (m) 7.25 8.00 8.00
DBH of large trees (cm) 14.00** 16.30 14.00 15.40
DBH of small trees (cm) 6.70 6.80 6.70 6.70
Canopy diameter of large trees (m) 5.90 4.50 5.00
Canopy diameter of small trees (m) 3.00 2.00*** 2.50
Lianas of large trees (no.) 2 2
Lianas of small trees (no.) 1 1
Connectivity of large trees (no.) 3** 2
Connectivity of small trees (no.) 2
(
*
)
1
Distance of large trees (m) 3.98** 4.69 3.90 3.85
Distance of small trees (m) 2.98*** 4.07 2.96 3.25
N of large trees 204
DBH: n = 196
Height and
canopy diameter
n = 60
212 208
N of small trees 204
DBH: n = 182
Height and
canopy diameter
n = 60
212 208
Canopy cover (%) 84 85
N of canopy cover 47 50


Difference between forests
Random large trees in forest A had a significantly larger canopy diameter than in forest
B (Z = -3.796, P < 0.001). This difference was not found in used large trees between forests.
In respect to small trees, canopy diameter (Z = -3.763, P< 0.001) and height (Z = -2.524,
P < 0.05) differed significantly between forests in random microhabitat, but not in used
microhabitat.
In respect to microhabitat (large trees) there was a significant difference found between
forests in canopy size (Z = -3.952, P < 0.001, n = 268) and distance to the centre (Z = -4.008,
P < 0.001, n = 403). Canopy diameter could not be compared. Small trees also differed
significantly in canopy size (Z = -3.4, P < 0.01) and distance between forests (Z = -4.266,
P < 0.001). No such difference was found between the used microhabitat (large and small
trees) between the forests in distance.







31
Disturbance
There was no significant difference in number of stumps and evidence of fire between
used and random microhabitat but cattle faeces were significantly more found in used
microhabitats (Z = -7.713, P < 0.01, n =105).

Tree species
Tree species used most often during nightly activity of Mirza zaza in both forests are
listed in Table 11. In forest A animals used Albizia gummifera, Family Fabaceae, more often
than expected while in forest B it was Mangifera indica, Family Anacardiaceae (
2
= 16.894;
P < 0.01). In respect to microhabitat (large trees) Mirza zaza used Mascarenhasia
arborescens, Family Apocynaceae, and Petalodiscus platyrachis, Family Euphorbiaceae
(Malagasy name Kiropoka), in large trees more than expected (
2
= 30.11; P < 0.001) but
there was no preference for species found in small trees.

Table 11: Tree species, families and Malagasy names of large and small trees used most often by Mirza
zaza during their nightly activity. Total count and percentage of all trees collected are given. Trees n = 99,
microhabitat n = 234.
Species Family Malagasy name Count %
Trees
Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Manga 19 19.2
Macarisia lauciolata Rhizophoraceae Kirontsana 14 14.1
Albizia gummifera Fabaceae Sambalahy 12 12.1
Grangeria porosa Chrysobalanaceae Morasiro 8 8.1
Garcinia pauciflora Clusiaceae Taranta 8 8.1
Microhabitat
Macarisia lauciolata Rhizophoraceae Kirontsana 46 19.7
Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Manga 30 12.8
Garcinia pauciflora Clusiaceae Taranta 21 9.0
Mascarenhasia arborescens Apocynaceae Gidroa 15 6.4
Grewia boinensis Malvaceae Selivato 10 4.3








32
4.4. Discussion

Analysing home range overlap of Mirza zaza using the MCP method revealed only
slight overlap of the two neighbouring home ranges, whereas using 95 % kernel method, there
was no overlap at all. The relative exclusiveness of group home ranges was supported by the
fact that we saw only one uncollared animal (together with M5 at the periphery of its
individual home range) while following focal animals during the whole study period. There
was no obvious difference between male and female individual home range size. Individual
home ranges overlapped extensively between 60 and 98 % (MCP), which is expected for
animals living in dispersed pairs like in Phaner furcifer (Schlke & Kappeler 2003) or family
groups like Cheirogaleus major and C. medius (Lahann 2008). Promiscuous mating system
was suggested for Mirza zaza due to its large testes (Kappeler et al. 2005, Rode 2010). Males
of promiscuous M. coquereli increased their home range to 25 ha in the mating season
(Kappeler 1997a). July was the proposed mating season of M. zaza (Kappeler et al. 2005) but
males do not seem to increase their home range. Possibly, groups use the same core home
range while males search the periphery for other females in addition to the mating female in
the group. Genetic analysis should reveal whether groups are close relatives or breeding
groups. Another explanation is that group living may be an artefact of small fragment size that
forces animals to share habitat. Due to affiliative social behaviour observed we do not think
that the social organisation is unusual in these groups. F3 for instance spent 20% of the
observations in close proximity (< 5 m) with one of the males. Quiet Hn- calls were noticed
very frequently. Mirza and Cheirogaleus emit these calls during locomotion and meetings
with familiar individuals suggest that animals stay in close contact during the night (Pages
1980, Stanger 1993).
Compared to Mirza coquereli with a mean individual home range size of 4 ha,
individual and group home ranges of M. zaza were relatively small (max. 2.34 ha for group
home ranges and max. 2.21 ha for individual home ranges, calculated as MCP). Because dry
season is less severe in the range of M. zaza (Schwitzer 2005) animals may not require as
much space. In contrast home ranges could be limited by suitable forest available. The home
range of group 1 for instance was limited on three sides by another animals range, savannah
and bamboo forest (Fig. 3). It was also difficult to follow animals as no systematic paths were
established in order not to destroy remaining forest, and many areas were impenetrable due to
thick understorey and erosion holes (personal observation).



33
Pages (1978) observed Mirza coquereli in heights of on average 4.5 m (range 1 8 m).
M. zaza ranged on heights between 0 and 25 m. The apparent flexibility in height use seems to
be an advantage as vertical stratification is suggested to mitigate interspecific competition in
lemurs (Lahann 2008).
In respect to the composition of small, large trees and bamboos, Mirza zaza preferred
large trees. High connectivity of used trees and small distances to other trees are favoured.
Canopy diameter was preferred to be higher in forest B but lower in forest A. This
contradiction can be explained by a possible negative relation between distance between trees
and canopy diameter. Forest A was much degraded, distances between trees were large and
accordingly canopy had more space to develop. If denser areas are preferred this would then
relate to smaller canopy diameter. The preference towards small canopy diameter thus would
not show up in the denser forest B. Even though Ganzhorn (1995) found that M. coquereli
benefits from selective logging and small disturbances increase forest productivity (Ganzhorn
et al. 1997) we suggest that selective logging would only be acceptable if it does not decrease
the density of trees under a critical value. Distances preferred were approximately 4 m
between large trees and 3 m between small trees in both forests. This corresponds to 625 large
and 1111 small trees per hectare. Selective logging should only take place if densities are
higher. If reforestation is planned, these values should be taken into account. Although no
preference for trees with many lianas was apparent in this study, M. coquereli was found to
spent 60 % of their feeding time and 50 % of the feeding observations licking at branches of
the vines Hippocratea or Elachyptera minimiflora colonised by aggregations of homopteran
Flatidae larva and cochineals (Petter 1978, Hladik et al. 1980, Pages 1980).They also take up
the liquid directly from the adults and distribution of M. coquereli seemed to depend more on
the insects than on larva colonies (Pages 1980). The feeding preference was suggested to
allow the relatively small-bodied M. coquereli to stay active during dry season (Hladik et al.
1980). We observed M. zaza feeding on this larva two times but only on one occasion on a
liana. However, it would be interesting to determine in which microhabitat Flatidae is found
and if this coincides with preferences of M. zaza.
Disturbance measured as tree stumps and evidence offire seemed not to be important for
microhabitat selection of Mirza zaza. In contrast, more faeces were found in used
microhabitat than in random. Janzen (1988) states that in tropical dry forests cattle grazing is
a possibility to restore old pastures because animals feed on grass which competes with
saplings and burns very quickly. However, it is not clear if this would be also the case in
Madagascar.



34
Several tree species were favoured by Mirza zaza. Preference of Manga trees
(Mangifera indica) was expected because encounter rates were highest in forests with many
of these fruit trees (Markolf et al. 2008, Mittermeier, pers. comm.). This could be confirmed.
Manga trees are regarded as useful trees by the human population and are often the last trees
remaining in deforested areas (Schwitzer pers. comm., personal observation). The home range
of group 3 coincided with the only primary forest Manga tree patch in the respective forest.
Another tree preferred by Mirza zaza was Petalodiscus platyrachis. Interestingly the
Malagasy name Kiropoka translates into Lemur tree which emphasises the local knowledge
of the ecosystem. The sympatric Lepilemur sahamalazensis was found to feed on Mangifera
indica and Albizia gummifera (Ruperti 2007). As lepilemur is folivorous it is probably not
competing with Mirza zaza.

4.5. Conclusions and conservation recommendations

Based on our results and the fact that much of the habitat in Sahamalaza is already
highly fragmented we recommend protecting the remaining habitat, especially large tree and
intact dense forest areas. Selective logging should only occur in areas with more than
approximately 625 large and 1100 small trees per hectare. Recovery of degraded forests
should be allowed. When reforestation programmes are planned preferred tree species of
Mirza zaza and target density of trees should be taken into account. The space requirements of
Mirza zaza could assist in the clarification of its Red List status.

35

For submission as a manuscript of original research as required by the journal
LEMUR NEWS

5. Characteristics and use of nests and nest sites of the northern giant
mouse lemur Mirza zaza, in Sahamalaza, northwestern Madagascar

Johanna Rode
Nocturnal Primate Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK


Key words
Mirza zaza, Madagascar, nest use, social organisation, conservation

5.1. Introduction
Security offered by shelters is an important aspect in the survival and reproduction of
many small mammals including strepsirrhines that are generally nocturnal to avoid predation
(Terborgh and Janson 1986, Anderson 1998, Kappeler 1998). Different types of shelters
include tree holes or cavities, dense vegetation tangles and self-constructed or abandoned leaf
nests (Bearder et al. 2003). Shelters provide protection against predators, especially when
raising young, maintain good health through thermoregulation, protect against environmental
conditions and facilitate social relations (Anderson 1998; Schmid 1998; Thorn et al. 2010;
Perret 1998; Aquino and Encarnacin 1986; Kappeler 1998). Although tree holes are
generally regarded as higher quality shelters (Schmid 1998; Radespiel et al. 1998),
constructing leaf nests has a high adaptive potential due to independence from pre-formed tree
cavities and possible immediate and flexible responses to environmental changes (Thorn et
al. 2010). While some taxa like Varecia variegata only use nests in the breeding season to
hide their altricial infants (Kappeler 1998), many nocturnal lemurs also spend the days in leaf
nests as adults. Detailed information on regular leaf nest use is only available for some
strepsirrhini species, for example Galagoides, Galago and Otolemur (Bearder and Doyle
1974; Bearder et al. 2003), several mouse lemurs like Microcebus ravelobensis (Weidt et al.
2004; Thorn et al. 2010) or M. murinus (Radespiel et al. 1998), Mirza coquereli (Sarikaya
and Kappeler 1997), Cheirogaleus major (Wright and Martin 1995) and Daubentonia
madagascariensis (Ancrenaz et al. 1994; Sterling 1993). Type and location of nests as well as
structural characteristics probably have a crucial impact on the survival and reproduction for

36

nest-using species (Wells et al. 2006) and respective information about this important
resource will be essential in conservation planning.
Mirza zaza, distinguished from M. coquereli as a separate species in 2005 (Kappeler et
al. 2005), is one of the nocturnal lemur species in Madagascar that uses arboreal leaf nests as
shelters during the day (Kappeler et al. 2005). The species is Red-Listed as Data Deficient but
its restricted and highly fragmented distribution of as little as 2000 km
2
(calculated using
distribution data of Markolf et al. 2008 and vegetation data of Moat and Smith 2007) suggests
that it is very likely to be Endangered (Markolf et al. 2008). Due to ongoing threats to
remaining and already heavily fragmented forests where M. zaza occurs (Schwitzer and Lork
2004; Schwitzer et al. 2007b) information on its ecological needs is urgently required to
design effective conservation measures.
The size of nests limits the number and body size of animals seeking shelter during the
day. In stark contrast to its sister species Mirza coquereli, that has never been observed to
share nests (Kappeler 1997a), M. zaza sleeps in nests with 2-8 individuals (Kappeler et al.
2005). In captivity the large spherical nests of M. zaza are 50 cm in diameter and all
individuals, males, females and young, contribute to their construction (Pages 1980). Large
nests might become unstable and disintegrate with time, as exhibited in possums
(Lindenmeyer et al. 2008), which might set an upper limit for nest size. Support and location
seem to be important conditions for a good nest. Structure, stability and texture of branches
must be appropriate and materials for construction available (Wells et al. 2006). The height
and position of nests may have an impact on thermoregulation including exposure to sun and
rain or humidity (Bearder et al. 2003). The self-constructed nests of M. coquereli in Kirindy
were built a few meters below the top of Securinega (Family Euphorbiaceae) trees (Sarikaya
and Kappeler 1997) while Pages (1980) suggests heights of 2-10 m in trees that do not shed
their leaves (e.g. Euphorbiaceae) and are covered in lianas.
Sleeping in nests in groups might have energetic advantages but social constraints will
limit the maximum number of animals sleeping together. In Microcebus murinus 2 - 4 animals
seem to be a compromise between energetic advantages and social constraints (Perret 1998).
Nest associations can give an indication about the social organization and mating system of
the species (Kappeler and Van Schaik 2002). Morphological and behavioural data suggest a
highly promiscuous mating system for Mirza zaza (Kappeler et al. 2005; Rode 2010), but
information about nest use could further sharpen the picture.
To make information about nests and nest sites available for the design of effective
conservation measures I address three questions. First, what do nests of Mirza zaza look like?

37

Second, what are nest site characteristics preferred by M. zaza? Third, how does the species
use nests in terms of nest fidelity and composition and stability of groups sharing the nest?
This can give insight to the mating system.

5.2. Methods

The study site is described in section 2.2. After capturing Mirza zaza in life traps we
fitted them with radio collars to be able to follow them throughout the night. Details about the
capture process and radio-tracking can be found in section 2.3.
During the day animals were located in their nests and nest locations verified by
observing the animals emerge from or return to the nests. Nest characteristics were measured
as nest height in the tree, distance from the top of the tree (using trigonometry), position in
tree (trunk, branch or leaves), number of lianas connected to the nest and number of routes
used by the animals (Garcia and Braza 1993).
Nest trees were marked and subsequently described by tree species, tree height,
diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy size, number of lianas and number of connected
trees. The same variables were measured for trees used by individuals during the night when
they were active, and random trees. Nest microhabitat, used and random microhabitat
variables were measured using the point-centred quarter method (Ganzhorn 2003, see section
2.3). All nest trees variables were included for microhabitat as well as distance to nest tree
and canopy cover. Appendix 3 describes how variables were measured. For the analysis only
trees larger than 10 cm diameter were used since only large trees were used as sleeping sites.
Data of nest trees were compared to data of used and random trees while data of nest
microhabitat was compared to data of used and random microhabitat. In order to find out if
the nest tree species were more common among large and tall trees we compared species of
big trees (>10 cm DBH) to small trees (5 10 cm diameter) and species of tall trees (>10 m)
to low trees (< 10 m).
Nest sites were monitored via radio-tracking during the day and observations in the
evening and morning. Number of animals sleeping in one nest as well as sex and age
composition were investigated. Age classes were established as described in section 3. Return
and emergence times from the nests were noted down for each animal and behaviour observed
ad libitum right before returning and after emergence to the nest site. Even though the exact
location of one nest could only be estimated, its emergence and return times were included in
the analysis. The number of different sleeping sites per individual and return rate (number of

38

returns to a nest divided by the total of possible returns, Radespiel et al. 1998) was
determined.

Data analysis
Nest tree characteristics were compared between forests with Mann-Whitney U tests.
Since no difference in nest trees was found between forests the data were lumped. Due to non-
normal distribution of the data a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to compare
the nest, used and random trees, used and random microhabitat. Subsequently four Mann-
Whitney U tests (two-tailed) each were applied as post hoc tests to find out if the nest differed
from the other datasets. I applied a Bonferroni correction and set the significance level to
0.0125 for these tests (Cabin and Mitchell 2000). In order to test if nest tree species are more
present in larger or taller trees,
2
tests were computed. Emergence and return time was
normally distributed and subsequently one-way ANOVA was used to detect differences
between groups. All tests were performed according to Dytham (2003) and computed using
the software SPSS 17.0.

5.3. Results

Nests and nest sites
From May to July 2010 we captured 8 individuals and found seven nest trees
exclusively used by 3 stable groups. Four nests were located in Forest A and three in Forest B
(Fig. 7). Except for two nest sites the trees of a nest group were only 10-20 m apart.
Due to dense foliage, only one nest could be directly seen. The spherical nest was
approximately 50 to 80 cm in diameter. Due to rustling noises during observation we suspect
the nest material to be small branches and foliage. For one nest we could not determine the
exact location in the tree. There were no significant differences in nest variables between the
two forests. The attributes of all six nests are described in table 12. When excluding one nest
that was on a very high Canarium madagascariensis, mean distance from the top decreased to
1.60 m (1.07, n = 5). Five of the nests were located maximum 0.5 m next to or on the trunk,
while one was located on a branch of 1 m diameter. All locations were well covered under the
canopy. For three nests the animals used two different routes to leave or return to the nest, for
one nest three routes were used and for two nests only one route.



39

Table 12: Height, distance from top of the tree and number of lianas of 6 Mirza zaza nests









We found that nest trees are significantly higher and have a higher number of lianas
than used trees in both forests (Table 13). Differences between nests and random trees were
only found in forest B: nest trees are significantly higher, larger, have a higher canopy
diameter and more lianas. No differences were found in the microhabitat (Table 14).

Nest Group Height of nest (m) Distance from top (m) Lianas (no.)
1 1 14.30 2.18 5
2 2 11.90 3.17 20
3 2 17.74 1.05 10
4 2 22.19 11.06 50
5 3 11.96 0.51 13
6 3 10.65 1.06 5
Mean 14.79 3.17 17
Sd 4.41 3.98 17
Median 13.13 1.62 12
Min 10.65 0.51 5
Max 22.19 11.06 50
Figure 7: Locations of 7 nest trees within the observed home ranges of nest groups 1, 2 and 3 in two
different forests (forest A and forest B). White areas contain no forest but savannah. Home ranges
were calculated using 100 % Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP).

40

Table 13: Medians for 5 nest tree variables and comparison to used trees and random trees in two forests A and B.
Median

Nest
Used trees
Forest A
Used trees
Forest B
Random
trees forest A
Random trees
forest B
Height (m) 16.00 12.00** 12.00** 12.00
(
*
)
13.00**
DBH (cm) 29.92 17.63 18.78 16.62
(
*
)
15.28**
Canopy diameter (m) 8.50 6.00 6.00 5.88 5.00*
Lianas (no.) 15 2*** 2*** 2***
Connectivity (no.) 3 3 4 2
N 7 45 55 DBH: n = 164
Height and
canopy
diameter: n =
65
228
Empty cells indicate where no data were available. Significance level was set to P < 0.0125 and
indicated by p < 0.05
(
*
)
, p < 0.01 **, p < 0.001 ***

Table 14: Medians for 7 variables of microhabitat and comparison to used microhabitat and random
microhabitat in two forests A and B.
Median

Nest habitat
Used habitat
Forest A
Used habitat
Forest B
Random
habitat forest
A
Random
habitat forest
B
Height (m) 12.00 12.00 12.50 12.50
DBH (cm) 16.60 14.00
(
*
)
14.00 16.30 15.40
Canopy diameter (m) 4.50 4.50 5.90
(
*
)
5.00
Lianas (no.) 1 2 2
Connectivity (no.) 2 3 2
Distance (m) 4.45 3.98 3.90 4.69 3.85
N 28 204 212
DBH: n = 196
Height and canopy
diameter: n = 61
208
Empty cells indicate where no data were available. Significance level was set to P < 0.0125 and indicated
by p < 0.05
(
*
)
, p < 0.01 **, p < 0.001 ***


Nest tree species were Macarisia lauciolata, Family Rhizophoraceae (3x), Garcinia
pauciflora, Family Clusiaceae (2x), Sorindeia madagascariensis, Family Anacardiaceae (1x)
and Canarium madagascariensis, Family Burseraceae (1x). Only Macarisia lauciolata was
more present among big trees (>10 cm DBH) than small trees (5 10 cm diameter) (
2
=
77.085; P < 0.001). Nest tree species were not more common among trees higher than 10 m,
compared to trees lower than 10 m.


41

Nest utilisation
Animals were located in their nests on 33 days. Focal observations were carried out
during emergence from the nest on 26 evenings between 05:15 pm and 6:00 pm and return to
the nest on 24 mornings between 05:00 am and 06:00 am. The total time of nest behaviour
observation added up to 41.5 hours.
In total three nest groups could be observed (Table 15). Group size was 2 to 4
individuals (mean 3.3, sd 0.47, n = 3 nests). Nests of group 1 and 3 contained only one female
but several adult males with fully developed testes. The second nest group consisted of an
adult female and her young. We observed a third adult individual of unknown sex in their nest
on three days.

Table 15: Nest group composition of three groups of
Mirza zaza. F2 and N1 were not collared but were
observed sharing a nest with the collared female F2 in
group 2.
Group Forest ID sex age
Group 1 A M1 male adult
M2 male adult
F1 female sub-adult
M3 male adult
Group 2 A F2 female adult
F4 female juvenile
N1 ? adult
Group 3 B M4 male adult
M5 male adult
F3 female sub-adult

There was no difference in the return time between the different nest groups. The
animals returned between 4:12 am and 5:47 am (mean 5:28 am, sd 17:14, n = 42 mornings).
In the evening we found a significant difference in emergence time between the nest group 1
and nest group 3 (One way ANOVA F = 5.275, P = 0.08). Group 1 left their nests on average
at 17:39 (sd 5:37, range 17:23 - 17:49; n = 25 evenings) while group 3 emerged at 17:34 (sd
4:51, range 17:22 - 17:45; n = 21 evenings). Group 2 emerged between 17:30 and 17:49
(mean 17:37, sd 6:10, n = 15). When emerging from nests the individuals left the nest site
immediately. At their return they often entered the area early and showed grooming and social
behaviour like playing. One time we could observe one individual of group 1 improving the
nest by biting off a leafy branch and carrying it to the nest.
Group 1 stayed in the same nest during 24 control days over a 44-day period. Group 2
was located in the nests during 16 days in a 35-day period. This group swapped between two

42

close nest trees during some days but after a storm lasting several days they were found
changing their nest to another area. The third group was detected on 31 days during a 50 day
period and were found to use three close nests during this time. The change of one nest to the
other took several days in which different single individuals were swapping back and forth
between the new and the old nest tree during c. 17 days. Return rate was high with an average
of 91.9 % (sd 11.3, n = 8 individuals).

5.4. Discussion

Nests and nest sites
It is not always clear if nests of small mammals are self-constructed or abandoned by
other species (Thorn et al. 2010). Wright and Martin (1995) observed a female of
Microcebus rufus constructing a nest of 28 large leaves. They also witnessed Cheirogaleus
major improving existing leaf nests by integrating new leaves. A female of Microcebus
ravelobensis needed approximately an hour to build a leaf nest (Thorn et al. 2010). Although
we suggest the observed nest to be self-constructed due to an animal taking in a leaved branch
and due to rustling noise of dead leaves, it is possible that natural vegetation tangles or old
nests of other species are modified into nests by Mirza zaza. In a pilot study near Maromandia
one M. zaza was found occupying a nest that was built by Daubentonia madagascariensis
according to local guides, but may also have been built by M. zaza (personal observation).
Since we observed animals using very near trees as new nest locations we suggest that they
construct own nests since it is unlikely that old nests become available that frequently. Nests
of M. coquereli seem to be self-constructed (Sarikaya and Kappeler 1997) and in captivity M.
zaza built their own nests with individuals of all sex and age contributing to the construction
(Stanger et al. 1995).
The size of the observed spherical nest resembled nests described for captivity that were
about 50 cm in diameter (Pages 1980; Stanger et al. 1995) and could be confirmed for the nest
observed in this study. As Mirza zaza might sleep in groups of up to 8 individuals (Kappeler
et al. 2005) this size seems adequate for housing the high number of animals.
Often predation is suggested to be of the highest importance in the selection of sleeping
sites (Hamilton 1982; Fan and Jiang 2008). Due to very dense foliage only one nest was
visible to the observer. In the sub-humid forests of Sahamalaza National Park most of the
trees keep their foliage despite the dry season of 6 months (Schwitzer 2005). Additionally,
selecting nest places with dense vegetation and good camouflage improves concealment

43

(Bearder et al. 2003). Hediger (1977) suggests that it is more important for nocturnal prey
species to be hidden from the view of predators during the day compared to diurnal primates
that sleep during the night. This might explain why except for great apes none of the diurnal
primates build nests (Kappeler 1998).
In our study the nests was situated on average 3 meters below the top of tall trees. If the
outlier, a very tall Canarium madagascariensis, was excluded the average distance from the
top decreases to 1.5 m. Sarikaya and Kappeler (1997) confirm that Mirza coquereli builds
nests 1-2 m under the top of the tree while Pages (1980) suggests nest height of 2-10 m for M.
coquereli. As the branch where one of the nests was located functionally resembled a trunk
due to its enormous diameter, all nests were placed near the trunk and not the periphery of the
tree. The hidden and high position suggests a good protection against predators (Rasoloarison
et al. 1995). Goodman et al. (1993) report an individual of the equally sized M. coquereli
caught by a Madagascar Buzzard (Buteo brachypterus) and several individuals found with
scars indicating an attack by the raptor. Since Buteo as well as other raptors like the
Madagascar harrier hawk (Polyboroides radiates) are diurnal he suggests that the lemurs were
caught from their nests. Nests near the trunk with much foliage above thus seem to increase
protection.
Mirza zaza used one to three different routes to leave or access the nests. This was
especially evident for the single used tree of group 1 where three of four animals always used
exactly the same branches of nest and neighbouring tree to leave the site. Similar behaviour
was observed for owl monkeys (Garcia and Braza 1993). Knowing escape routes in case of a
predator attack should be of advantage (Aquino and Encarnacin 1986; Wells et al. 2006).
Nest tree characteristics differed from other used trees as well as from random trees.
Mirza zaza favours high and large trees with many lianas. High trees might be more difficult
for terrestrial predators to reach. Due to its bigger size M. zaza might not be as vulnerable to
smaller predators as for instance Microcebus (Goodman et al. 1993; Rasoloarison et al. 1995)
but remains of it have been found in scats of Cryptoprocta ferox (Rasoloarison et al. 1995),
which hunts during the day and the night (Karpanty and Wright 2007). Smaller diurnal
viverrids might be less dangerous for the medium-sized Mirza but may be for their young.
Schlke (2001) confirmed that the Madagascar tree boa Sanzinia madagascariensis preyed on
M. coquereli. However, the preference for high and large trees can not be explained by
predation pressures of snakes since the climbing ability of snakes is not affected by the height
or diameter of trees (Ancrenaz et al. 2004). Environmental forces are suggested to influence
the choice of sleeping sites (Aquino and Encarnacin 1986). As tree fall was very common in

44

Sahamalaza, especially during windy periods (personal observation), animals may select more
robust trees in order to sleep in a secure place. This was suspected for Orang-utans (Ancrenaz
et al. 2004). The location of nests near the trunk supports the importance of solid support. The
high number of lianas covering the sleeping trees might serve as dilution from predators
(Rendings et al. 2003; Garcia and Braza 1993). Suitable structure of surrounding vegetation
and lianas may be useful as support for the nests (Wells et al. 2006). Pages (1980) reports that
nest trees of M. coquereli were usually covered in lianas. In respect to microhabitat of the nest
there were no differences in variables found. This emphasises the relative uniqueness of the
nest trees.
In Kirindy, Mirza coquereli used Euphorbiaceae as nest tree species probably because
this family does not shed leaves during dry season (Sarikaya and Kappeler 1997, Pages 1980).
The different climate with less trees shedding foliage during dry season might allow M. zaza
in Sahamalaza to be less specific about tree species. We found only for one species
(Macarisia lauciolata) being more present among trees with a higher DBH and might be
favoured by Mirza zaza due to its large diameter instead of the species itself. There was no
such association found for the other species, although Canarium madagascariensis is known
to be a very big and tall tree. In the studied forests not many of these charismatic trees were
left and thus occurrence of the species was low. Tree species might be favoured for other
reasons, e.g. of different species-specific structure (Wells et al. 2006).
There seems to be much interspecific competition for pre-structured shelters.
Microcebus cf myoxinus competed for holes with M. murinus, Cheirogaleus medius, rodents
and reptiles (Schwab 2000). Interspecific competition but also cohabitation of sites was also
found between Aotus and other nocturnal mammals. Allocebus trichotis was observed to share
holes with the white-tailed tree rat without aggression (Brachytarsomys albicauda) (Biebouw
et al. 2009). Group 2 once changed their sleeping site to a nearby tree but went back to the old
tree on the following day. That evening a Lepilemur sahamalazensis was seen emerging from
the new nest tree. Although Ruperti (2007) reported that sympatric L. sahamalazensis use
different tree species as found for Mirza zaza, this might be an indication that good nesting
trees are rare in general and there is interspecific competition for them.

Nest utilisation
Mirza zaza differs from its sister species M. coquereli in its diurnal gregarious nesting
behaviour. While M. coquereli sleeps in nests alone, M. zaza was found to share nests
between 2-8 individuals (Kappeler et al. 2005). In this study we could observe nest groups

45

from 2 to 4 individuals. During the dry season Microcebus murinus can build sleeping groups
of up to 15 animals but average sleeping group size is usually much smaller for Malagasy
nocturnal primates (Eberle and Kappeler 2006). Bearder et al. (2003) report that galagines
may sleep in groups of up to 10 individuals, whereas the Myosore Slender Loris (Loris
lydekkerianus lydekkerianus) can sleep in groups of up to 7 (Nekaris 2003). Nocturnal
primate species were traditionally regarded as solitary but revealed to show different social
systems (Mller and Thalman 2000). The existing variability is underlined by the unusual
composition of Mirza zaza nest groups. Most nocturnal strepsirrhines sleep in small groups
including female kin and offspring but not several males (Radespiel et al. 1998; Nash and
Harcourt 1986; Pimley 2003; but see Nekaris 2003). Interestingly, two groups observed for
this study contained one sub-adult female and several adult males with fully developed testes.
Kappeler et al. (2005) found on average 0.77 adult females and 1.06 adult males with fully
developed testes in a nest. The high number of adult males was only reported for a few other
species. Weidt et al. (2004) report that some sleeping associations of Microcebus ravelobensis
contained several adult males. One of the explanations was that this presents a mating strategy
where males have direct control and access to the females in their group instead of having to
search for them (Weidt et al. 2004). Several adult males have been observed to sleep in the
same group including females and young in Lori lydekkerianus lydekkerianus (Nekaris 2003).
The nest composition found in Mirza zaza may indicate a multi-male multi-female system but
genetic analysis may have to confirm this conclusion. High variability in testes size within
Mirza zaza groups (Rode 2010) might also suggest that reproductive suppression takes place
(Kappeler 1997b), like assumed for Eulemur fulvus rufus (Glander et al. 1992). In M. zaza
groups could also be extended families as it is the case for Cheirogaleus where an adult pair
formed a sleeping group with sub-adults and the recent years infants (Mller 1998).
Nest groups of Mirza zaza were stable and did not change during the whole study
period. A third adult individual of group 2 was occasionally observed but may have joined the
group for only a few days. In other species sleeping groups were not only also stable in
dispersed pairs or families (e.g. Lepilemur edwardsi, Rasoloharijaona et al. 2003;
Cheirogaleus medius, Mller 1999), but also in mixed-sex groups of Microcebus ravelobensis
(Weidt et al. 2004).
Nest were group-exclusive and groups stayed in the same nest during long time periods
of up to at least 44 days (group1). Only up to three nests were used. Return rates thus were
very high. In contrast, Kappeler et al. (2005) found individuals of Mirza zaza using 2-5
different nests on the 3-7 days they could be located. Lepilemur edwardsi showed a similar

46

high nest site fidelity than M. zaza with only 2-3 close nest sites (Rasoloharijaona et al. 2003)
while some mouse lemurs used as few sites as for instance 3 to 7 in female Microcebus
murinus (Radespiel et al. 1998). Weidt et al. (2004) reports M. raveobensis staying in one
nest for maximum 16 successive days. There may be two non-exclusive explanations for a
small number of exclusive nest sites. If suitable trees become less available in degraded or
logged forests the continuous use and reuse of certain trees may increase (Ancrenaz et al.
2004). Less frequent change of nest sites may be a function of low habitat quality. Second,
males of Microcebus murinus changed their sleeping site frequently in order to decrease
predation risk (Radespiel et al. 1998). Observed nest sites of Mirza zaza may be very high in
quality, which would decrease the necessity for changing the site (Radespiel et al. 1998). Both
explanations would lead to intensive intraspecific competition between groups for this
resource and animals trying to monopolize high quality nest sites like it was suggested for
Lepilemur edwardsi (Rasoloharijaona et al. 2003), Microcebus ravelobensis (Braune et al.
2005) or M. murinus (Radespiel et al. 1998). M. ravelobensis marked their sleeping sites
when animals dispersed in the evening. This was interpreted as facilitation of relocation and
claiming of the sleeping site (Braune et al. 2005). Aotus showed a delay in leaving the nest
which was associated with marking the nest (Garcia and Braza 1993). Mirza zaza was not
observed to mark their nest but due to dense foliage this behaviour might have been missed.
However, as M. zaza only used a few nests in close vicinity this might have not been
necessary. In terms of relocation, groups returned to the nest with time lag between the first
and the last individual. Individuals took their time before permanently entering the nest. They
were often seen on the nest tree or neighbouring trees grooming or engaging in social
activities. This was also observed for Lori lydekkerianus lydekkerianus (Nekaris 2003). Pages
(1978) confirms that M. coquereli shows more social activities during the second half of the
night compared to the first half where behaviour focuses more on feeding.
The difference in emergence time can be explained by the western-facing location of the
nest of group 1. Due to later sunset the animals probably emerged later in order to decrease
predation risk.
If the nest was changed, in all cases except one a very near tree was chosen as a new
nest site. This suggests that the terrestrial predator risk might be low and changing trees not a
function of predator risk. Mirza zaza have a strong body odour (personal observation) and
changing the nest site might not be very effective against predator with good olfactory senses.
Changing nests might be more a function of environmental conditions, disintegration of the
nest over time or accumulation of parasites (Aquino and Encarnacin 1986; Roper et al.

47

2002). The observation of group 2 changing the nest after or during a heavy storm suggests
this.
When group 3 changed their nest they did it gradually with single animals sleeping first
in the new tree. This was also observed for Lori lydekkerianus lydekkerianus (Nekaris 2003).
In Mirza zaza all individuals slept in the new tree at least once and thus probably all
individuals helped preparing a new nest like observed in captivity (Stanger et al. 1995).
Finally they moved as a whole group like in Microcebus ravelobensis (Weidt et al. 2004) or
Aotus (Aquino and Encarnacin 1986). The previously used nest disintegrated very quickly
during a storm.

5.5. Conclusions and recommendations

This study showed a preference of Mirza zaza for large and tall nest trees with a high
amount of lianas. The animals did not use many different nest trees, which may be a sign of
scarcity in suitable trees within the respective home ranges. Nest sites are not only important
for security against predators or environmental conditions, but also for social activity.
Accordingly, we recommend the protection of forest fragments with big trees and discourage
selective logging of big and tall trees. Reforestation in respect to the provision of suitable nest
sites should focus on tree species growing fast to become high and big trees. Nest
composition suggests M. zaza living as dispersed groups with cohesive multi-male/multi-
female or extended families nest groups.

48
6. Synopsis

6.1. Conclusions

This first comprehensive ecological study about Mirza zaza gave an insight into the
requirements and preferences of the species and showed that species research can lead to
precise recommendations for conservation. Several preferences were found towards trees and
microhabitat used during the animals nightly activity as well as for their daily nest sites.
These preferences were translated into recommendations for the strategic design of
conservation action plans. Although the study period seemed too short to gather accurate
information about home range sizes a first estimate was done which as the best available
information should guide first assessments of the species conservation status. Interesting
findings about the mating system and social organisation bring up new questions as
morphology points to a promiscuous mating system but ranging and sleeping patterns indicate
a close family or group bond. In summary, M. zaza is a very interesting (and cute) species.
Many aspects of its life are remaining unsolved but are worth investigating because M. zaza
might be unique in its life style.

6.2. Future research

In this project I was able to collect many data and due to time restrictions not all data
could be included here. I plan to prepare two other publications, one about general behaviour
and feeding, and another about genetic distance of the Ankarafa Forest population and
relatedness of nest group members. Genetic analysis may further indicate possible genetic
differences to other populations. I suggest that research about Mirza zaza goes on, for instance
in order to verify home range sizes and overlap or investigate the relation between M. zaza
and abundance of Flatidae.

49
7. References


Ancrenaz M, Calaque R, Lackman-Ancrenaz I (2004). Orangutan Nesting Behavior in
Disturbed Forest of Sabah, Malaysia: Implications for Nest Census. International Journal
of Primatology 25:983-1000.
Ancrenaz M, Lackman-Ancrenaz I, Mundy N (1994). Field Observation of Aye-Ayes
(Daubentonia madagascariensis) in Madagascar. Folia Primatologica 62:22-36.
Anderson JR (1998). Sleep, Sleeping Sites, and Sleep-Related Activities: Awakening to
Their Significance. American Journal of Primatology 46:63-75.
Andriaholinirina N, Fausser J-L, Roos C, Zinner D, Thalmann U, Rabarivola C,
Ravoarimanana I, Ganzhorn JU, Meier B, Hilgartner R, Walter L, Zaramody A, Langer C,
Hahn T, Zimmermann E, Radespiel U, Craul M, Tomiuk J, Tattersall I, Rumpler Y
(2006). Molecular phylogeny and taxonomic revision of the sportive lemurs (Lepilemur,
Primates). BMC Evolutionary Biology 6.
Andrianasolo TH, Andrianjazalahatra TL, Rakotondranary SJ, Ramarokoto REAF,
Randria G, Rdel N, Schller J, Ganzhorn JU (2006). Habitat utilisation of nocturnal
lemurs in evergreen littoral forests of different degrees of degradation. In German-
Malagasy Research Cooperation in Life and Earth Sciences (Schwitzer C et al., eds),; pp
151-159. Berlin, Germany: Concept Verlag.
Aquino R, Encarnacin F (1986). Characteristics and Use of Sleeping Sites in Aotus
(Cebidae: Primates) in the Amazon Lowlands of Peru. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 11:319-331.
Bearder SE (1999). Physical and Social Diversity Among Nocturnal Primates: A New
View Based on Long Term Research. Primates 40:267-282.
Bearder SK, Ambrose L, Harcourt C, Honess P, Perkin A, Pimley E, Pullen S, Svoboda N
(2003). Species-Typical Patterns of Infant Contact, Sleeping Site Use and Social
Cohesion among Nocturnal Primates in Africa. Folia Primatologica 74:337-354.
Bearder SK, Doyle GA (1974). Field and Laboratory Studies of Social Organization in
Bushbabies (Galago senegalensis). Journal of Human Evolution 3:37-50.
Biebouw K (2009). Home Range Size and Use in Allocebus trichotis in Analamazaotra
Special Reserve, Central Eastern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology
30:367-386.
Biebouw K, Bearder S, Nekaris A (2009). Tree Hole Utilisation by the Hairy-Eared Dwarf
Lemur (Allocebus trichotis) in Analamazaotra Special Reserve. Folia Primatologica
80:89-103.
Braune P, Schmidt S, Zimmermann E (2005). Spacing and group coordination in a
nocturnal primate, the golden brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis): The role of
olfactory and acoustic signals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58:587-596.

50
Cabin RJ, Mitchell RJ (2000). To Bonferroni or Not to Bonferroni: When and How Are
the Questions. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81:246-248.
Chouteau P (2004). The impacts of logging on the microhabitats used by two species of
couas in the western forest of Madagascar. Comptes Rendus Biologies 327:1157-1170.
Craul M, Zimmermann E, Rasoloharijaona S, Randrianambinina B, Radespiel U (2007).
Unexpected species diversity of Malagasy primates (Lepilemur spp.) in the same
biogeographical zone: a morphological and molecular approach with the description of
two new species. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:1-15.
Crompton RH, Andau PM (1986). Locomotion and Habitat Utilization in Free-ranging
Tarsius bancanus: A Preliminary Report. Primates 27:337-355.
Dytham C (2003). Choosing and Using Statistics. A Biologist's Guide. Malden, US;
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004). Sex in the dark: determinants and consequences of mixed
male mating tactics in Microcebus murinus, a small solitary nocturnal primate. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 57:77-90.
Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2006). Family insurance: kin selection and cooperative breeding
in a solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60:582-
588.
Fan P-F, Jiang X-L (2008). Sleeping Sites, Sleeping Trees, and Sleep-related Behaviors of
Black Crested Gibbons (Nomascus concolor jingdongensis) at Mt. Wuliang, Central
Yunnan, China. American Journal of Primatology 70:153-160.
Fietz J (1999a). Mating System of Microcebus murinus. American Journal of Primatology
48:127-133.
Fietz J (1999b). Monogamy as a Rule Rather than Exception in Nocturnal Lemurs: the
Case of the Fat-tailed Dwarf Lemur, Cheirogaleus medius. Ethology 105:259-272.
Ganzhorn JU (1995). Low-Level Forest Disturbance Effects on Primary Production, Leaf
Chemistry, and Lemur Populations. Ecology 76:2084-2096.
Ganzhorn JU (2003). Habitat description and phenology. In Field and Laboratory
Methods in Primatology: A Practical Guide (Setchell JM, Curtis DJ, eds),; pp 40-56.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ganzhorn JU, Malcomber S, Andrianantoanina O, Goodman SM (1997). Habitat
Characteristics and Lemur Species Richness in Madagascar. Biotropica 29:331-343.
Garcia JE, Braza F (1993). Sleeping Sites and Lodge Trees of the Night Monkey (Aotus
azarae) in Bolivia. International Journal of Primatology 14:467-477.
Gardner CJ, Jasper L (2009). Possible new Mirza taxon from the Fiherenana River valley,
Atsimo-Andrefana Region. Lemur News 14:46-49.
Glander KE, Wright PC, Daniels PS, Merenlender AM (1992). Morphometrics and

51
testicle size of rain forest lemur species from southeastern Madagascar. Journal of Human
Evolution 22:1-17.
Goodman SM, O'Connor S, Langrand O (1993). A Review of Predation on Lemurs:
Implications for the Evolution of Social Behavior in Small, Nocturnal Primates. In Lemur
Social Systems and Their Ecological Basis (Kappeler PM, Ganzhorn JU, eds),; pp. 51-66.
New York, US: Plenum Press.
Hamilton WJI (1982). Baboon Sleeping Site Preferences and Relationships to Primate
Grouping Patterns. American Journal of Primatology 3:41-53.
Harcourt AH, Harvey PH, Larson SG, Short RV (1981). Testis weight, body weight and
breeding System in primates. Nature 293:55-57.
Harcourt C, Thornback J (1990). Lemurs of Madagascar and the Comoros: the IUCN red
data book. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Harcourt CS, Nash LT (1986). Social Organization of Galagos in Kenyan Coastal Forests:
I. Galago zanzibaricus. American Journal of Primatology 10:339-355.
Harris S, Cresswell WJ, Forde PG, Trewhella WJ (1990). Home-range analysis using
radio-tracking data a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the
study of mammals. Mammal Review 20:97-123.
Hediger H (1977). Nest and Home. Folia Primatologica 28:170-187.
Hladik CM, Charles-Dominique P, Petter JJ (1980). Feeding strategies of five nocturnal
prosimians in the dry forest of the west coast of Madagascar. In Nocturnal Malagasy
primates: ecology physiology and behaviour (Charles-Dominique P et al., eds),; pp 41-73.
New York, USA: Academic Press.
Horvath JE, Weisrock DW, Embry SL, Fiorentino I, Balhoff JP, Kappeler P, Wray GA,
Willard HF, Yoder AD (2008). Development and application of a phylogenomic toolkit:
Resolving the evolutionary history of Madagascars lemurs. Genome Research 18:489-
499.
IUCN (2009) 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Viewed 21 January 2010, <http://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Janzen DH (1988). Tropical Ecological and Biocultural Restoration Science 239:243-244.
Jolly A (2004). Lords & Lemurs. Mad Scientists, Kings with Spears, and the Survival of
Diversity in Madagascar. New York, USA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kappeler PM (1990). The Evolution of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Prosimian Primates.
American Journal of Primatology 21:201-214.
Kappeler PM (1991). Patterns of Sexual Dimorphism in Body Weight among Prosimian
Primates. Folia Primatologica 57:132-146.
Kappeler PM (1997a). Intrasexual selection in Mirza coquereli: evidence for scramble
competition in a solitary primate. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45:115-127.

52
Kappeler PM (1997b). Intrasexual selection and testis size in strepsirhine primates.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 8:10-19.
Kappeler PM (1997c). Determinants of Primate Social Organization. Comparative
Evidence and New Insights from Malagasy Lemurs. Biological Reviews 72:111-151.
Kappeler PM (1998). Nests, Tree Holes, and the Evolution of Primate Life Histories.
American Journal of Primatology 46:7-33.
Kappeler PM, Rasoloarison RM, Razafimanantsoa L, Walter L, Roos C (2005).
Morphology, behaviour and molecular evolution of giant mouse lemurs (Mirza spp.)
Gray, 1870, with description of a new species. Primate Report 71:3-26.
Kappeler PM, van Schaik CP (2002). Evolution of Primate Social Systems. International
Journal of Primatology 23:707-740.
Karpanty SM, Wright PC (2007). Predation on Lemurs in the Rainforest of Madagascar
by Multiple Predator Species: Observations and Experiments. In Primate Anti-Predator
Strategies (Gursky SL, Nekaris KAI, eds),; pp 77-99. New York, US: Springer.
Kaufmann JC (2006). The Sad Opaqueness of the Environmental Crisis in Madagascar.
Conservation and Society 4:179-193
Kenagy GJ, Trombulak SC (1986). Size and Function of Mammalian Testes in Relation to
Body Size. Journal of Mammalogy 67:1-22.
Kenward RE (2001). A manual for wildlife tagging. San Diego; London: Academic Press.
Krause DW (2010). Washed up in Madagascar. Nature 463:613-614.
Lahann P (2008). Habitat Utilization of Three Sympatric Cheirogaleid Lemur Species in a
Littoral Rain Forest of Southeastern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology
29:117-134.
Leutenegger W (1978). Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body size and breeding system in
primates. Nature 272:610-611.
Lindenmayer DB, MacGregor C, Welsh A, Donnelly CF, Brown D (2008). The use of
hollows and dreys by the common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) in different
vegetation types. Australian Journal of Zoology 56:1-11.
Madagascar National Parks (no date) Sahamalaza. Madagascar National Parks,
Antananarivo, Madagascar. Viewed 17 September, <http://www.parcs-madagascar.com>
Markolf M, Kappeler PM, Rasoloarison R (2008). Distribution and conservation status of
Mirza zaza. Lemur News 13:37-40.
Martin P, Bateson P (1993). Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Merker S, Yustian I, Mhlenberg M (2005). Responding to forest degradation: altered
habitat use by Dians tarsier Tarsius dianae in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Oryx 39:189-195.

53
Mittermeier RA, Ganzhorn JU, Konstant WR, Glander K, Tattersall I, Groves CP,
Rylands AB, Hapke A, Ratsimbazafy F, Mayor MI, Jr. EEL, Rumpler Y, Schwitzer C,
Rasoloarison RM (2008). Lemur Diversity in Madagascar. International Journal of
Primatology 29:1607-1656.
Mittermeier RA, Konstant WR, Hawkins F, Louis EE, Langrand O, Ratsimbazafy J,
Rasoloarison R, Ganzhorn JU, Rajaobeina S, Tattersall I, Meyers DM (2006). Lemurs of
Madagascar. Washington, DC, USA: Conservation International.
Moat J, Smith P (2007) Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens
Kew, UK: Kew Publishing.
Moller AP (1989). Ejaculate Quality, Testes Size and Sperm Production in Mammals.
Funcional Ecology 3:91-96.
Mller AE (1998). A Preliminary Report on the Social Organisation of Cheirogaleus
medius (Cheirogaleidae; Primates) in North-West Madagascar. Folia Primatologica
69:160-166.
Mller AE (1999). Aspects of Social Life in the Fat-Tailed Dwarf Lemur (Cheirogaleus
medius): Inferences From Body Weights and Trapping Data. American Journal of
Primatology 49:265-280.
Mller AE, Thalmann U (2000). Origin and evolution of primate social organisation: a
reconstruction. Biological Reviews 75:405.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000). Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858.
Nash LT, Harcourt CS (1986). Social Organization of Galagos in Kenyan Coastal Forests:
I I. Galago garneitii. American Journal of Primatology 10:357-369.
Neilson K, Curran JM, Towns DR, Jamieson H (2006). Habitat use by chevron skinks
(Oligosoma homalonotum) (Sauria: Scincidae) on Great Barrier Island, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30:345-356.
Nekaris A (2003). Spacing System of the Mysore Slender Loris (Loris lydekkerianus
lydekkerianus). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:86-96.
Olivieri G, Zimmermann E, Randrianambinina B, Rasoloharijaona S, Rakotondravony D,
Guschanski K, Radespiel U (2007). The ever-increasing diversity in mouse lemurs: Three
new species in north and northwestern Madagascar. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 43:309-327.
Pages E (1978). Home range, behaviour and tactile communication in a nocturnal
Malagasy lemur Microcebus coquereli. In Recent advances in primatology (Chivers DA,
Joysey KA, eds),; pp 171-177. London, UK: Academic Press.
Pages E (1980). Ethoecology of Microcebus coquereli during the dry season. In Nocturnal
Malagasy primates: ecology physiology and behaviour (Charles-Dominique P et al., eds),;
pp 97-116. New York, USA: Academic Press.

54
Perret M (1998). Energetic Advantage of Nest-Sharing in a Solitary Primate, the Lesser
Mouse Lemur (Microcebus murinus). Journal of Mammalogy 79:1093-1102.
Petter JJ (1978). Ecological and physiological adaptations of five sympatric nocturnal
lemurs to seasonal variation in food production. In Recent advances in primatology
(Chivers DA, Joysey KA, eds),; pp 211-223. London, UK: Academic Press.
Pimley ER, Bearder SK, Dixson AF (2005). Home Range Analysis of Perodicticus potto
edwardsi and Sciurocheirus cameronensis. International Journal of Primatology 26:191-
206.
Pochron ST, Wright PC (2002). Dynamics of testes size compensates for variation in male
body size. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4:577-585.
Price MV (1978). The Role of Microhabitat in Structuring Desert Rodent Communities.
Ecology 59:910-921.
Pullen SL, Bearder SK, Dixson AF (2000). Preliminary Observations on Sexual Behavior
and the Mating System in Free-ranging Lesser Galagos (Galago moholi). American
Journal of Primatology 51:79-88.
Rabarivola C, Zaramody A, Fausser J-L, Andriaholinirina N, Roos C, Zinner D, Marcel
H, Rumpler Y (2006). Cytogenetic and molecular characteristics of a new species of
sportive lemur from Northern Madagascar Lemur News 11:45-49.
Radespiel U, Cepok S, Zietemann V, Zimmermann E (1998). Sex-Specific Usage Patterns
of Sleeping Sites in Grey Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus murinus) in Northwestern
Madagascar. American Journal of Primatology 46:77-84.
Rasoloarison RM, Rasolonandrasana BPN, Ganzhorn GU, Goodman SM (1995).
Predation on vertebrates in the Kirindy Forest, western Madagascar. Ecotropica 1:59-65.
Rasoloharijaona S, Rakotosamimanana B, Randrianambinina B, Zimmermann E (2003).
Pair-Specic Usage of Sleeping Sites and Their Implications for Social Organization in a
Nocturnal Malagasy Primate, the Milne Edwards Sportive Lemur (Lepilemur edwardsi).
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122:251-258.
Ratsimbazafy J, Rakotoniaina LJ, Durbin J (2008). Cultural Anthropologists and
Conservationists: Can We Learn from Each Other to Conserve the Diversity of Malagasy
Species and Culture? In Greening the Great Red Island: Madagascar in Nature and
Culture (Kaufmann JC, ed), pp 301-316. Pretonia, South Africa: Africa Institute of South
Africa.
Rendigs A, Radespiel U, Wrogemann D, Zimmermann E (2003). Relationship Between
Microhabitat Structure and Distribution of Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus spp.) in
Northwestern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology 24:47-64.
Richard AF, Dewar RE (1991). Lemur Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 22:145-175.
Ridley M (1986). The numbers of males in a primate troop. Animal Behaviour 34:1848-
1858.

55
Rode J (2010). Conservation ecology, morphology and reproduction of the nocturnal
northern giant mouse lemur Mirza zaza in Sahamalaza National Park, northwestern
Madagascar. MSc thesis, Oxford Brookes University. Oxford, UK.
Roos C, Kappeler PM (2006). Distribution and Conservation Status of Two Newly
Described Cheirogaleid Species, Mirza zaza and Microcebus lehilahytsara. Primate
Conservation 21:51-53.
Roper TJ, Jackson TP, Conrad L, Bennett NC (2002). Burrow Use and the Inuence of
Ectoparasites in Brants Whistling Rat Parotomys brantsii. Ethology 108:557-564.
Ruperti FS (2007). Population Density and Habitat Preferences of the Sahamalaza
Sportive Lemur (Lepilemur sahamalazensis) at the Ankarafa Research Site, NW
Madagascar. MSc thesis, Oxford Brookes University. In School of Social Sciences and
Law; pp 73. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford Brookes UniversityUK.
Sarikaya Z, Kappeler PM (1997). Nest building behavior of Coquerel's dwarf lemur
(Mirza coquereli). Primate Report 47:3-9.
Schmid J (1998). Tree Holes Used for Resting by Gray Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus
murinus) in Madagascar: Insulation Capacities and Energetic Consequences. International
Journal of Primatology 19:797-809.
Schmid J, Kappeler PM (1994). Sympatric Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus spp.) in Western
Madagascar. Folia Primatologica 63:162-170.
Schmid J, Kappeler PM (1998). Fluctuating sexual dimorphism and differential
hibernation by sex in a primate, the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 43:125-132.
Schlke O (2001). Social Anti-Predator Behaviour in a Nocturnal Lemur. Folia
Primatologica 72:332-334.
Schlke O, Kappeler PM (2003). So near and yet so far: territorial pairs but low cohesion
between pair partners in a nocturnal lemur, Phaner furcifer. Animal Behaviour 65:331-
343.
Schwab D (2000). A Preliminary Study of Spatial Distribution and Mating System of
Pygmy Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus cf myoxinus). American Journal of Primatology
51:41-60.
Schwab D, Ganzhorn JU (2004). Distribution, Population Structure and Habitat Use of
Microcebus berthae Compared to Those of Other Sympatric Cheirogalids. International
Journal of Primatology 25:307-330.
Schwitzer C (2005). Die Avifauna des Naturschutzgebietes "Sahamalaza - Iles Radama",
Nordwest-Madagaskar. Zeitschrift des Klner Zoo 48:133-144.
Schwitzer C, Kaumanns W (2003). Foraging patterns of free-ranging and captive primates
- Implications for captive feeding regimes. In Zoo Animal Nutrition (Fidgett F, Clauss M,
Gansloer U, Hatt JM, Nijboer J, eds), pp 247-265. Frth, Germany: Filander Verlag.

56
Schwitzer C, Lork A (2004). "Projet Sahamalaza - Iles Radama": Ein internationales
Schutzprojekt fr den Sclater's Maki (Eulemur macaco flavifrons GRAY, 1867).
Zeitschrift des Klner Zoo 47:75-84.
Schwitzer C, Schwitzer N, Randriatahina GH, Rabarivola C, Kaumanns W (2006).
Programme Sahamalaza: New perspectives for the in situ and ex situ study and
conservation of the blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur macaco flavifrons) in a fragmented
habitat. In Proceedings of the German-Malagasy Research Cooperation in Life and Earth
Sciences (Schwitzer C et al., eds),; pp 135-179. Berlin: Concept Verlag.
Schwitzer N, Kaumanns W, Seitz PC, Schwitzer C (2007). Cathemeral activity patterns of
the blue-eyed black lemur Eulemur macaco flavifrons in intact and degraded forest
fragments. Endangered species research 3:239-247.
Schwitzer N, Randriatahina GH, Kaumanns W, Hoffmeister D, Schwitzer C (2007).
Habitat Utilization of Blue-eyed Black Lemurs, Eulemur macaco flavifrons (Gray, 1867),
in Primary and Altered Forest Fragments. Primate Conservation 22:79-87.
Smith (2009) Madagascars lemurs in danger from political turmoil and timber mafia.
Guardian.co.uk, London, UK. Viewed 16 September 2010,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/madagascar-lemurs-conservation-
forests-extinction>.
Stanger KF (1993). Structure and function of the vocalizations of nocturnal prosimians
(Cheirogaleidae). Dissertation, University Tbingen. In Department of Physiology of
Behaviour; pp. Tbingen, Germany: University Tbingen.
Stanger KF, Coffman BS, Izard MK (1995). Reproduction in Coquerel's Dwarf Lemur
(Mirza coquereli). American Journal of Primatology 36:223-237.
Stanger KF, Macedonia JM (1994). Vocalizations of Aye-Ayes (Daubentonia
Madagascariensis) in Captivity. Folia Primatologica 62:160-169.
Sterling EJ (1993). Patterns of Range Use and Social Organization in Aye-ayes
(Daubentonia madagascariensis) on Nosy Mangabe. In Lemur Social Systems and Their
Ecological Basis (Kappeler PM, Ganzhorn JU, eds),; pp 1-10. New York, US: Plenum
Press.
Tattersall I (2007). Madagascar's Lemurs: Cryptic Diversity or Taxonomic Inflation?
Evolutionary Anthropology 16:12-23.
Terborgh J, Janson CH (1986). The Socioecology of Primate Groups. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 17:111-136.
Thorn S, Quietzsch F, Radespiel U (2010). Leaf Nest Use and Construction in the
Golden-Brown Mouse Lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis) in the Ankarafantsika National
Park. American Journal of Primatology 72:48-55.
VanderWerf EA (1993). Scales of Habitat Selection by Foraging 'Elepaio in Undisturbed
and Human-Altered Forests in Hawaii. The Condor 95:980-989.
Vrin P (2003). Political Chaos, Economic Recession, and the Adjustment to Poverty: The

57
case of Madagascar. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 14:216-237.
Vi J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (eds) (2009). Wildlife in a Changing World - An
Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Weidt A, Hagenah N, Randrianambinina B, Radespiel U, Zimmermann E (2004). Social
Organization of the Golden Brown Mouse Lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis). American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 123:40-51.
Wells K, Lakim MB, Pfeiffer M (2006). Nest Sites of Rodent and Treeshrews in Borneo.
Ecotropica 12:141-149.
Wells NA, Andriamihaja BR (1997). Extreme Gully Erosion in Madagascar and Its
Natural and Anthropogenic Causes. In Cultural Transformations and Their Impacts on the
Environments of Madagascar (Goodman S, Patterson B, eds),; pp. 44-55 Washington &
London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Wright HT, Rakotoarisoa J-A (1997). Cultural Transformations and Their Impacts on the
Environments of Madagascar. In Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar
(Goodman SM, Patterson BD, eds),; pp. 381-405 Washington & London: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Wright PC (1999). Lemur Traits and Madagascar Ecology: Coping With an Island
Environment. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42:31-72.
Wright PC, Martin LB (1995). Predation, Pollination and torpor in two Nocturnal
Prosimians: Cheirogaleus major and Microcebus rufus in the Rain Forest of Madagascar.
In Creatures of the Dark: The Nocturnal Prosimians (Alterman L, Doyle GA, Izard MK ,
eds.),; pp. 45-60 New York: Plenum Press.
Yoder AD, Rasoloarison RM, Goodman SM, Irwin JA, Atsalis S, Ravosa MJ, Ganzhorn
JU (2000). Remarkable species diversity in Malagasy mouse lemurs (primates,
Microcebus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97:11325-11330.
Yoder AD, Yang Z (2004). Divergence dates for Malagasy lemurs estimated from
multiple gene loci: geological and evolutionary context. Molecular Ecology 13:757-773.
Young AL, Richard AF, Aiello LC (1990). Female Dominance and Maternal Investment
in Strepsirhine Primates. The American Naturalist 135:473-488.


58
Appendix 1: Oestrus cycle of Mirza zaza

Table 16: Oestrus cycle of Mirza zaza in captivity and vaginal appearance of each cycle. Data adapted from
Stanger et al., 1995.
Vaginal appearance
Phase Duration (days) Colour Swelling Opening Comments
Pro-oestrus 0-2 Pink Swollen Wide open
Oestrus 1 Pink-red Very swollen Wide open Skin smooth
Met-oestrus 1-2 Pink-red Very swollen Open Skin wrinkled
Di-oestrus 14-24 White Not swollen Sealed or closed


59
Appendix 2: Incremental area analysis of group and individual home
ranges of Mirza zaza

I. Method: 100 % MCP

0 19 38 57 76 95
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 0.9688 ha
0 +5 90 135 180 225
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 2.3+135 ha





0 + 8 12 16 20
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 0.5795 ha
0 2 + 6 8 10 12
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 0.5133 ha

Figure A1: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of group 1 (left) and group 3 (right) (100% MCP)
Figure A2: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of M1 (left) and M2 (right) (100% MCP)

60

0 9 18 27 36 +5
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 0.8+1+5 ha
F1
0 + 8 12 16 20
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 0.6296 ha




0 3 6 9 12 15
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.9939 ha
0 17 3+ 51 68 85
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.9198 ha





Figure A3: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of F1 (left) and M3 (right) (100% MCP)
Figure A4: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of F2 (left) and M4 (right) (100% MCP)

61
0 10 20 30 +0 50
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 2.21175 ha

0 18 36 5+ 72 90
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.553 ha

Figure A5: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of M5 (left) and F3 (right) (100% MCP)

62

II. Method: 95 % kernel

0 19 38 57 76 95
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.5621+992E8 ha
0 +5 90 135 180 225
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.+0315568E8 ha







0 + 8 12 16 20
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.5621+992E8 ha
0 2 + 6 8 10 12
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.+0069296E8 ha

Figure A6: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of group 1 (left) and group 3 (right) (95% kernel)
Figure A7: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of M1 (left) and M2 (right) (95 % kernel)

63
0 9 18 27 36 +5
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.38065888E8 ha
0 + 8 12 16 20
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.38075152E8 ha




0 3 6 9 12 15
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.3808+8+8E8 ha
0 17 3+ 51 68 85
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.+0315568E8 ha


Figure A8: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of F1 (left) and M3 (right) (95 % kernel)
Figure A9: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of F2 (left) and M4 (right) (95 % kernel)

64
0 10 20 30 +0 50
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.+031062+E8 ha
0 18 36 5+ 72 90
00
20 20
+0 +0
60 60
80 80
100 100
Num. locations
Area() Nax. range area 1.56+92576E8 ha
Figure A5: Incremental area analysis of home ranges of M5 (left) and F3 (right) (95 % kernel)

65
Appendix 3: Variables used to study Mirza zaza

Table 17: Variables of habitat and habitat use, and ethogram of Mirza zaza as used for this project
Tree and microhabitat variables for large tree (10 cm DBH), small tree ( between 5.1 and10 cm
DBH)
Height (m) Height of tree top, mean of two estimates
DBH (cm) Diameter at breast height, taken with measurement tape
Canopy diameter (m) Largest horizontal width of the tree crown, mean of two estimates
Lianas (no.) Count of all lianas with >1 cm DBH
Connectivity (no.) Number of connections to other trees with > 5 cm DBH
Distance (m) Distance from centre tree to nearest tree in the respective quadrant, precise
to 1 cm
Canopy cover (%) Percentage of canopy cover, as analysed from a photo taken 2.5 m to the
northwest from the centre tree
Tree species Malagasy name, translated into scientific name (if possible)

Disturbance variables
Tree stumps (no.) Number of tree stumps, cut by humans
Evidence of fire (no.) Number of black spots or wood clearly indicating the occurrence of fire in
the past
Cattle faeces (no.) Number of cattle faeces that can be still distinguished from soil

Position of animal
Type of tree Type of tree used by animal, measured as large tree (10 cm DBH), small
tree (<10 cm DBH) or bamboo (>3 cm DBH)
Height of the animal Estimated height of the animal when first seen or after a time interval of 5
minutes, mean of two estimates
Support type Support type includes trunk, branch, leaves (including branches < 1 cm),
fork and liana

Ethogram
Behaviour category
Resting Animal is non-mobile with eyes closed or no apparent voluntary activity for
at least 3 seconds
Moving Non-stationary activity which involved the act of moving from one location
to the other without any apparent engagement in searching for food
Grooming Picking at another individual with fingers and/or teeth (Allogrooming) or
picking at ones own body with teeth and fingers (Autogrooming)
Playing Engagement in rough and tumble activity with one another or alone that
clearly has no aggressive component, such as touching, tugging, chasing or
swinging
Feeding, foraging Involvement in the process of actively taking in food, including eating,
chewing, examining or holding food (feeding) or active involvement in the
process of locating food, e.g. manipulating support surface while staring
intently at the surface in search of food (foraging)
Other Behaviour different from the categories above

Light
Light intensity Light intensity as inferred from GPS, measured as (1) no light, (2) up to
moon, (3) between and half moon, (4) between half moon and moon,
and (5) between moon and full moon.

66