4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

The bushmeat harvest alters seedling banks by favoring lianas, large seeds, and seeds dispersed by bats, birds, and wind

Journal

BIOTROPICA
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 363-371

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00289.x

Keywords

anthropogenic disturbance; Barro Colorado Island; poachers; seed dispersal; tropical forest

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated predictions that hunters favor lianas, large seeds, and seeds dispersed by bats, small birds, and mechanical means for seedling banks in central Panama. We censused 3201 trees in 20 1-ha plots and 38,250 seedlings in the central 64 m(2) of each plot. We found significant differences in the species composition of the seedling bank between nine protected sites in the Barro Colorado Nature Monument and 11 hunted sites in the contiguous Parque Nacional Soberania. Lianas, species with large seeds, and species with seeds dispersed by bats, small birds, and mechanical means were all overrepresented at hunted sites. The latter two findings could also be evaluated relative to the species composition of reproductively mature adults for canopy trees. The tree species present in the seedling bank had significantly heavier seeds than the tree species present as adults at hunted sites but not at protected sites. The representation of seed dispersal modes among the species present in the seedling bank did not reflect pre-existing differences in the local species composition of adults. We hypothesize that hunting large seed predators favors large seeds by reducing predation and increasing survival. We also hypothesize that the harvest of large birds and mammals that disperse many seeds favors other species whose seeds are dispersed by bats, small birds, and mechanical means. This process also favors lianas because the seeds of disproportionate numbers of liana species are dispersed by wind.

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