4.6 Article

Bird Pollinator Visitation is Equivalent in Island and Plantation Planting Designs in Tropical Forest Restoration Sites

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 1177-1187

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su5031177

Keywords

birds; Costa Rica; ecosystem service; hummingbird; Neotropical migrant; pollination

Funding

  1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  2. Earthwatch Institute
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB 05-15577]
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0918112] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Active restoration is one strategy to reverse tropical forest loss. Given the dynamic nature of climates, human populations, and other ecosystem components, the past practice of using historical reference sites as restoration targets is unlikely to result in self-sustaining ecosystems. Restoring sustainable ecological processes like pollination is a more feasible goal. We investigated how flower cover, planting design, and landscape forest cover influenced bird pollinator visits to Inga edulis trees in young restoration sites in Costa Rica. I. edulis trees were located in island plantings, where seedlings had been planted in patches, or in plantation plantings, where seedlings were planted to cover the restoration area. Sites were located in landscapes with scant (10-21%) or moderate (35-76%) forest cover. Trees with greater flower cover received more visits from pollinating birds; neither planting design nor landscape forest cover influenced the number of pollinator visits. Resident hummingbirds and a migratory bird species were the most frequent bird pollinators. Pollination in the early years following planting may not be as affected by details of restoration design as other ecological processes like seed dispersal. Future work to assess the quality of various pollinator species will be important in assessing this idea.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available