Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:22:47.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata), dung beetles (Scarabaeidae) and seed dispersal: ecological interactions in the tropical rain forest of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Alejandro Estrada  and
Rosamond Coates-Estrada
Alejandro Estrada
Affiliation:
Estaciόn de Biología ‘Los Tuxtlas’, Instituto de Biología, Universidad National Autόnoma de México, Apartado Postal 176, San Andrés Tuxlla, Veracruz, México
Rosamond Coates-Estrada
Affiliation:
Estaciόn de Biología ‘Los Tuxtlas’, Instituto de Biología, Universidad National Autόnoma de México, Apartado Postal 176, San Andrés Tuxlla, Veracruz, México
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dispersal of seeds by howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata) and the activity of dung beetles in modulating the fate of the dispersed seed were studied at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Howlers consumed the fruits of 35 species of plants. The seeds of 28 of these were dispersed by the monkeys. The majority (≥90%) of the seeds dispersed by monkeys were destroyed by rodents. Rapid relocation and burial of dung by dung beetles resulted in accidental relocation and burial of large numbers of seeds shortly after deposition. Faecal clumps (20 mg) remained on the ground for an average of only 2.5 h (range 1–3 h). Ball rolling beetles transported balls up to 5.0 m from the site of deposition (range 1–5 m). Burrowing and ball-rolling dung beetles buried seeds at depths ranging from 2.5 to > 12.0cm. The deeper a seed is buried, the less likely it is to be found and eaten by rodents. Eighty percent of the species used by Alouatta as sources of fruit at Los Tuxtlas benefited by the dispersal and post dispersal service provided by howlers and dung beetles respectively. Seasonality in dung beetles abundance in the forest may influence the number of seeds per species escaping post-dispersal predation during the year. Dung beetles play not only an important ecological role in the recycling of matter and energy in the ecosystem, but also in the process of rain forest regeneration.

Resumen

La dispersión de semillas por monos aulladorcs (Alouatla palliata) y el impacto de la aclividad de forrajeo y nidificación de escarabajos coprófagos sobre cl destino de las semillas dispersadas fucron cstudiados en la selva de Los Tuxtlas, México. La mayoría (≥90%) de las semillas (28 cspecies de plantas) dispersadas por los monos son deprcdadas por rocdores. El aprovechamicnto de matcria faecal por escarabajos en el suelo dc la selva resulta en la relocalización y cntcrramiento accidental de tin gran número dc semillas poco después de ser expulsadas por los monos a traves de sus heces. Los escarabajos enticrran las semillas a profundidades que van desde 2.5 a < 12.0cm disminuyendo asi la eficiencia con la qiie los rcodores pueden localizarlas. Ochenta porciento de las especies de planlas usadas por lo monos como fuentcs de frutos en Los Tuxtlas reciben los beneficios de dispersion y postdispersion aportados por aulladorcs y escarabajos coprofagos respectivamente. La estacionalidad en la abundancia relativa de escarabajos coprofagos en la selva de Los Tuxtlas podria detcrminar el numcro de semillas que escapan a la fuerte depredacion postdispersion en el ańo. Los escarabajos coprofagos son componcntcs imporlantcs no solo en rcciclajc de matcria y energia en el ccosistcma pcro tambicn en el proceso natural dc regencracion dc la selva.

Keywords

Alouatta palliatdung beetleshowlersMexicoScarabaeidaeseed dispersalseed predationtropical rain forest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , November 1991 , pp. 459 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Augspurger, C. 1983. Seed dispersal of the tropical tree Platypodium elegans, and the escape of its seedlings from fungal pathogens. Journal of Ecology 7:759–771.Google Scholar
Bornkmissza, G. F. 1960. Could dung eating insects improve our pastures? Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Sciences 26:54–56.Google Scholar
Charles-Dominique, P. 1986. Inter-relations between frugivorous vertebrates and pioneer plants: Cecropia, birds and bats in French Guyana. Pp. 122–135 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Coates-Estrada, R. & Estrada, A. 1988. Frugivory and seed dispersal in Cymbopetalum baillonii (Annonaceae) at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4:157–171.Google Scholar
Estrada, A. & Coates-Estrada, R. 1984. Fruit eating and seed dispersal by howlers (Alouatta palliata) in the tropical rain forest of Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. American Journal of Primalology 6:77–91.Google Scholar
Estrada, A. & Coates-Estrada, R. 1986. Frugivory by howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata) 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, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. 1986. Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Fincher, G. T., Steward, T. B. & Davis, R. 1969. Beetle intermediate hosts for swine spirurids in southern Georgia. Journal of Parasitology 56:378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillard, P. 1967. Coprophagous beetles in pasture ecosystems. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Sciences 33:30–34.Google Scholar
Halffter, G. & Edmonds, W. D. 1982. The nesting behaviour of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. Publicaciones del Institute) de Ecologia. Mexico City, 175 pp.Google Scholar
Halffter, G. & Matthews, E. G. 1966. The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoplcra, Scarabaeidae). Folia Entomologica Mexicana 38:29–107.Google Scholar
Hallwachs, W. 1986. Agoutis (Dasyprocta punctata): the inheritors of guapinol (Hymanea courbaril: Legumino-sac). Pp. 285–303 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Heinrich, B. & Bartholomew, G. A. 1979. The ecology of the African dung beetle. Scientific American 241:146–156.Google Scholar
Howden, H. F. & Nealis, V. G. 1975. Effects of clearing in a tropical rain forest on the composition of the coprophagous scarab beetle fauna (Coleoptera). Biotropica 7:77–85.Google Scholar
Howden, H. F. & Nealis, V. G. 1978. Observations on height of perching in some tropical dung beetles (Scarabaeidae). Biotropica 10:43–46.Google Scholar
Howden, H. F. & Young, O. P. 1981. Panamanian Scarabaeidae. Contributions to the American Entomological Institute (Ann Arbor) 18:1–204.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1982a. Removal of seeds from horse dung by tropical rodents: influence of habitat and amount of dung. Ecology 63:1887–1900.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1982b. Attraction of Lyomis mice to horse dung and the extinction of this response. Animal Behaviour 30:483–489.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1983. Seasonal change in abundance of large nocturnal dung beetles (Scarabaeidae) in a Costa Rican deciduous forest and adjacent horse pasture. Oikos 41:274–283.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1986. Mice, big mammals, and seeds: it matters who defecates what where. Pp. 251–271 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Klemperer, H. G. & Boulton, R. 1976. Brood burrow construction and brood care by Heliocopris japetus (Klug) and Heliocopris hamadryas (Fabrines) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Ecological Entomology 1:19–29.Google Scholar
Lindquist, A. W. 1933. Amount of dung buried and soil excavated by certain Coprini (Scarabaeidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 6:109–125.Google Scholar
Miller, A. 1954. Dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) and other insects in relation to human feces in a hook-worm area of southern Georgia. American Journal of Tropical Hygiene 3:372–388.Google Scholar
Moron, A. 1979. Fauna de coleoptcros lamelicornios de la Estacion de Biologia Tropical ‘Los Tuxtlas’, Veracruz, UNAM, Mexico. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, U. NAM, Mexico. 50:375–454.Google Scholar
Nagy, K. & Milton, K. 1979. Energy metabolism and food consumption by wild howler monkeys. Ecology 60:475–480.Google Scholar
Nealis, V. G. 1977. Habitat association and community analysis of south Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 55:138–147.Google Scholar
Nummelin, N. & Hanski, I. 1989. Dung beetles of the Kibale forest, Uganda; comparison between virgin and managed forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5:349–352.Google Scholar
Peck, B. S. & Forsyth, A. 1982. Composition, structure and competitive behaviour in a guild of Ecuadorian rain forest dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1624–1634.Google Scholar
Schupp, E. W. & Frost, E. 1989. Differential prcdation of Welfia georgii seeds in treefall gaps and the forest understorey. Biotropica 21:200–203.Google Scholar
Vazquez-Yanes, C., Orozco, A., Francisco, G. & Trejo, L. 1975. Observations of seed dispersal by bats in a tropical humid region in Veracruz, Mexico. Biotropica 7:73–76.Google Scholar
Young, O. P. 1981. The attraction of neotropical Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae) to reptile and amphibian faecal material. The Coleopterist Bulletin 35:345–348.Google Scholar