Evaluates habitat suitability for six macaque species in Thailand, indicating conservation needs due to climatic and human impacts.
Climate change and anthropogenic disturbances are significant factors influencing primate distributions and habitat conditions. This study evaluates the influence of climatic and anthropogenic factors on habitat suitability for six macaque species in Thailand: long‐tailed macaque (LTM), Rhesus macaque (RSM), stump‐tailed macaque (STM), Assamese macaque (ASM), northern pig‐tailed macaque (NPM), and Sunda pig‐tailed macaque (SPM). Habitat suitability was predicted through Maxent‐based species distribution models (SDMs), which integrated bioclimatic and anthropogenic predictors. Occurrence data were collected from field surveys conducted between 2005 and 2025, literature, and citizen science data. The macaque habitat, anthropogenic dependence, and coexistence (MAC) framework was utilized to evaluate habitat quality (HQ). Hierarchical clustering was employed to analyze environmental niche similarities based on variable contribution profiles. Most SDMs exhibited moderate to high discriminatory ability, indicated by a test AUC > 0.7, with the SPM displaying the highest level of consistency. Thermal variables were predominant for the ASM and NPM; temperature seasonality was the primary factor for the RSM and STM, while precipitation influenced the SPM distribution. Anthropogenic factors, particularly artificial light at night (ALAN), significantly impacted the LTM. Hierarchical clustering revealed three distinct clusters. The HQ assessments indicated that the SPM and STM were associated with high‐quality, natural forest habitats, whereas the LTM and RSM were primarily correlated with human‐modified landscapes. Predicted suitable habitats are extensive for the NPM, STM, and LTM but are increasingly restricted for the ASM, RSM, and SPM. The findings offer comprehensive insights to facilitate monitoring, habitat management, and conservation planning for macaques in Thailand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Changruenngam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: