4.2 Article

Body size determines rates of seed dispersal by giant king crickets

Journal

POPULATION ECOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 73-80

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10144-010-0222-9

Keywords

Coevolution; Fleshy-fruits; Frugivore; Mutualism; New Zealand; Weta

Categories

Funding

  1. Victoria University of Wellington

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New Zealand is home to giant king crickets called weta, which are the only insects known to consume fleshy-fruits and disperse seeds after gut passage. Although they disperse seeds in viable condition after consumption, their importance as seed dispersers is unknown. We conducted a series of field observations and laboratory experiments to investigate intraspecific variation in the capacity of Wellington tree weta (Hemidenina crassidens) to disperse seeds of tree fuchsia (Fuchsia excorticata). We asked three questions. How frequently do weta disperse fuchsia seeds? Do seed passage rates differ between sexes and different-sized weta? Might weta select for particular seed sizes via differential seed mortality after ingestion? A total of 2,272 F. excorticata seedlings germinated from 241 scats (i.e., faecal pellets) that were collected from the field. Experimental results showed that, on average, 15% of seeds ingested by weta successfully germinated, whereas 75% germinated in control trials. Larger weta dispersed greater numbers of seeds in experimental trials, while no differences in dispersal rates were observed between sexes. Regardless of sex and size, weta preferentially dispersed larger seeds. When interpreted collectively, results indicate that (1) weta are frequent seed dispersers of F. excorticata, although many seeds are destroyed during ingestion, (2) larger-bodied weta consistently disperse greater quantities of seeds, which is unusual in seed dispersal mutualisms, and (3) weta preferentially disperse larger seeds, suggesting that they might interact evolutionarily with New Zealand plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available