obtusifolia and Coussapoa villosa). Interestingly, these two
tree species were the least used by the two-toed sloth,
perhaps a strategy used to avoid interspecific competition.
Differences in tree use for the two sloth species appear to
depend on the ability of each species to adapt to human
modifications; for example, the two-toed sloth generally
used the non-native species Erythrina poeppigiana in
pastures, while we did not observe any three-toed sloths
using this tree species.Overall, the diversity of tree usewas
somewhat dependent on habitat type, and was similar
for both sloth species in riparian forests and pastures,
which could be due to the differential availability of
trees in the two habitats. On one hand, the richness of
trees within intact tropical rain forests is highest and
sloths of both species have access to a great number of
different tree species. On the other hand, the paucity of
tree species within pastures limits the diversity of tree use
for both species of sloth. In the habitat where we observed
a difference in the diversity of tree use – shade-grown
cocoa – the two-toed sloth used a greater diversity of
trees compared with the three-toed sloth. This difference
is likely due to limited availability of trees preferred by
three-toed sloths, especially the scarcity of secondary trees
like Nectandra salicifolia and Ocotea sinuata, leading to
particularly strong dependence on Cecropia obtusifolia and
Coussapoa villosa in shade-grown cocoa (pers. obs).