Fig 1.
Buccal tooth surfaces (0.45 mm2) of mandrills from the studied population.
The different SEM micrographs show different microwear patterns with (A) no evident artifacts; (B) some artifacts: patina layers and patches of erosion characterized by groups of pinholes; (C) visible perikymata paralleling the cement-enamel junction (indicated by the white arrows); and (D) with large scratches and fuzzy areas due to the curvature of the tooth surface.
Fig 2.
Effects of the season of sampling on three buccal microwear variables: (A) the average scratch length; and (B) the percentages of vertical scratches and disto-mesial scratches. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
Table 1.
Description of the six buccal microwear variables, by their means and standard deviations (±SD) calculated from samples collected during the full study period as well as during the two studied seasons, and also obtained separately from males and females.
Table 2.
Effects of seasonality, individual characteristics, and tooth properties on buccal microwear patterns.
Table 3.
Effects of PDE on buccal microwear patterns.
Table 4.
Relationships between PDE and diet variables.
Fig 3.
First (PC1) and second (PC2) principal components of the PCA showing differences in buccal microwear patterns across several primate species.
The studied mandrill population is highlighted (circle). The labeled arrows show the unrotated loadings of microwear parameters onto PC1 and PC2. Comparative microwear data are obtained from Estebaranz and colleagues [22].