Art and Simmen discovered only among 3 focal groups of Eulemur macaco at Ampasikely to contain mangroves within their territory,and only in one of 3 years,when Chris Birkinshaw (pers. comm.) studied this species in Nosy Be for months with out ever observing mangrove use,and villagers in Ankazomborona state that E. macaco does not enter mangroves despite the fact that it’s frequent in adjacent degraded habitat (C. Gardner unpubl. information). Therefore mangrove use may perhaps occur in some parts of a species’ range but not in others. To get a smaller variety of species mangrove use could be common behavior,but even then only for any limited population within the species’ ranges. For example,mangroves are said to be the preferred habitat of Propithecus coronatus at Antrema (Roger and Andrianasolo,and have been reported from there by 4 respondents in this study,though P. coquereli was reported to use mangroves at four distinctive sites. Nevertheless,mostC. J. Gardnerof these species’ ranges lie away from coastal and estuarine locations,and at inland web pages the animals are restricted to deciduous dry forests (Andriamasimanana and Cameron ; KunRodrigues PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048438 et al. ; Rakotonirina et al Likewise mangrove use by Lemur catta has been widely reported from south of Necrosulfonamide cost Toliara (Donati et al. ; Sauther et al. ; Scott et al. ND),even though this can be the only area within the selection of the species in which mangroves occur. Even though most observations were produced at or close for the edge of mangrove stands this really is probably to reflect sampling bias,as their dense growth and regular inundation render mangroves significantly easier to travel previous,on the landward or seaward side,than to travel via. Hence these data need to not be regarded as proof that lemurs tend only to make use of mangrove edge habitats. Indeed,observations of Microcebus cf. ravelobensis,Mirza zaza,and Lepilemur cf. grewcockorum at distances of km in the nearest dry land demonstrate that these species penetrate deep into mangrove stands. Whereas the former were regularly observed in an region exactly where mangroves are contiguous with intact native forest,the adjacent vegetation at Antsahampano where Microcebus cf. mamiratra and Mirza zaza had been observed consisted of coconut plantations and nonnative scrub,when the landscape surrounding the mangrove in which Lepilemur cf. grewcockorum was observed is totally deforested. The absence of contiguous native forest cover from these places suggests that the observed populations aren’t dependent on sourcesink dynamics and the immigration of individuals from areas of higher high-quality habitat (Pulliam,but are in fact able to sustain viable populations in the mangrove. However,it must not be assumed that these populations will remain viable in the long term due to the fact there may be time lags connected with all the impacts of landscape deforestation around mangroves,and the remaining lemur populations could therefore be carrying an Bextinction debt^ (Hylander and Ehrl ; Kuussaari et al It has been hypothesized or demonstrated that lemurs and other primates could use mangroves as a refuge following loss of,or disturbance to,preferred habitats (GalatLuong and Galat ; Gauthier et al. ; Nowak. Though the presence of lemurs in mangroves lacking adjacent terrestrial habitats might be taken as evidence in help of this hypothesis,we can not infer that mangroves are suboptimal habitat due to the fact we usually do not know irrespective of whether these species also employed mangroves when connecting terrestrial forests remained. If mangroves do function as refuge habitats for some nocturn.