Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T05:52:05.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frugivory and seed dispersal in Cymbopetalum baillonii (Annonaceae) at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Rosamond Coates-Estrada  and
Alejandro Estrada
Rosamond Coates-Estrada
Affiliation:
Estación de Biología Los Tuxtlas, Instituto de Biología-UNAM, Apartado Postal 176, San Andrés Tuxtla, Veracruz, México
Alejandro Estrada
Affiliation:
Estación de Biología Los Tuxtlas, Instituto de Biología-UNAM, Apartado Postal 176, San Andrés Tuxtla, Veracruz, México
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fruit production, frugivore foraging activity and seed dispersal was studied at 10 Cymbopetalum baillonii (Annonaceae) trees during an entire fruiting season. Fruits dehisced during the first six months of the year offer to potential dispersal agents a package of 8–24 arillate seeds. Insects and fungi, however, killed up to 14% of the seeds potentially available for dispersal before fruit dehiscence. Visitation by 24 species of birds and one mammal to the trees closely followed the availability of arillate seeds. The foraging activity of Peromyscus and Heteromys rodents accounted for ≥ 80% mortality of the seeds deposited under the crown of the parent tree. Among those seedlings that became established under the crown mortality was ≥ 90% after 12 months. Seeds dispersed under conspecific fruiting trees experienced intense predation by vertebrates. Field experiments showed that seeds and seedlings planted ≥ 30 m away from adult trees survived significantly longer than those planted under the crown and at distances ≤ 30 m. An unequivocal advantage to dispersal away from the tree and under allospecific trees was evident from the data. A very narrow range of frugivores (N = 8 species) accounted for the quality component of dispersal services to the trees. The tree with the lowest animal visitation and fruit crop was the most efficient in the dispersal of its seeds.

Resumen

La producción de frutos, la actividad alimenticia de animales frugívoros y la dispersión de semillas por estos últimos fué estudiada en 10 árboles de Cymbopetalum baillonii (Annonaceae) durante una época completa de frutación. Las frutas capsuladas se abren durante los primeros seis meses del aão ofreciendo a los dispersores un paquete de 8–24 semillas ariladas. Sin embargo, los insectos y hongos matan hasta un 14% de las semillas potencialmente disponibles para la dispersión antes de la apertura de las cápsulas. La apertura de las cápsulas resultó en la visitación de veinte y dos especies de aves y de un mamífero que siguieron muy de cerca la distribución temporal de la disponibilidad de las semillas ariladas. Las semillas dispersadas bajo la copa del árbol progenitor y de árboles conespecíficos fueron intensamente depredadas por roedores de los géneros Peromyscus y Heteromys que causaron el 80% ó más de la mortalidad observada. Entre las plántulas que se establecieron en estos sitios la mortalidad fué igual ó mayor que el 90% después de 12 meses. Experimentos con semillas y plántulas mostraron que aquellas sembradas a 30 ó más metros del árbol progenitor y bajo árboles alospecíficos sobrevivieron significativamente más tiempo que las sembradas a distancias menores de 30 metros. Un grupo muy restringido de frugívoros (N = 8 especies) trasladaron las semillas a distancias mayores de 30 m aportando así un servicio de calidad en la dispersión. El árbol con el menor número de visitas por frugívoros y con una de las cosechas más bajas de frutos fué el individuo más eficiente en la dispersión de sus semillas.

Keywords

Cymbopetalum bailloniifrugivoryMexicoseed dispersalseed predationtropical rain forest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1988 , pp. 157 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, D. A. & Clark, D. B. 1981. Effects of seed dispersal by animals on the regeneration of Bursera graveolens (Burseraceae) on Sante Fe Island Galapagos. Oecologia (Berl.) 49:73–75.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1971. On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees. Pp. 298–312 in Den Boer, E. P. J. & Gradwell, G. (eds). Dynamics of population. PUDOC, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dirzo, R. & Dominguez, C. 1986. Seed shadows, seed predation and the advantages of dispersal. Pp. 237–250 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. 392 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrada, A. & Coates-Estrada, R. 1983. Rain forest in Mexico: research and conservation at Los Tuxtlas. Oryx 17:210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrada, A. & Coates-Estrada, R. 1986. Frugivory in howling (Alouatta palliata) monkeys at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico: dispersal and fate of seeds. Pp. 93–104 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. 392 pp.Google Scholar
Flores, J. A. M. 1981. Bromatologia animal (2nd edition). Editorial Limusa. Mexico City, Mexico. 930 pp.Google Scholar
Herrera, C. M. 1984. A study of avian frugivores, bird-dispersed plants, and their interaction in Mediterranean scrublands. Ecological Monographs 54:1–23.Google Scholar
Herrera, C. M. 1985. Determinants of plant-animal coevolution: the case of mutualistic dispersal of seeds by vertebrates. Oikos 4:132–141.Google Scholar
Herrera, C. M. 1986. Vertebrate-dispersal plants: why they don't behave the way they should. Pp. 5–18 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. 392 pp.Google Scholar
Herrera, C. M. & Jordano, P. 1981. Prunus mahaleb and birds: the high-efficiency seed dispersal systems of a temperate fruiting tree. Ecological Monographs 51:203–218.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. & Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:201–228.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F., Schupp, E. W. & Westley, L. C. 1985. Early consequences of seed dispersal for a neotropical tree (Virola Surinamensis). Ecology 66:781–791.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1970. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist 104:501–528.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1983a. Seed and pollen dispersal by animals: convergence in the ecology of contamination and sloppy harvest. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 20:103–113.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1983b. Dispersal of seeds by vertebrate guts. Pp. 232–262 in Futuyama, D. J. & Slatkin, M. (eds). Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. 250 pp.Google Scholar
Levey, D. J. 1986. Methods of seed processing by birds and seed deposition patterns. Pp. 147–158 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. 392 pp.Google Scholar
Manassee, R. S. & Howe, H. F. 1983. Competition for dispersal agents among tropical trees: influences of neighbors. Oecologia (Berl.) 59:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, T. D. & Sarukhan, J. 1968. Arboles tropicales de Mexico. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales. Mexico City, Mexico. 300 pp.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, N. T. & Orians, G. H. 1982. Seed dispersal by animals: contrasts with pollen dispersal, problems of terminology, and constraints on coevolution. American Naturalist 119:402–413.Google Scholar