4.7 Article

Forest edges and landscape history shape interactions between plants, seed-disperrsing ants and seed predators

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 141, Issue 3, Pages 838-847

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.029

Keywords

edge effects; mutualism; myrmecochory; predation; secondary succession

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ant-dispersed plants are often conspicuously rare in young forests and near forest edges. We monitored the distributions of five ant-dispersed plant taxa, the seed-collecting ant community, and variation in seed predation pressure by rodents in a 350-acre mesic forest in northern New York, USA to assess the incidence and effect of plant-animal interactions within the context of landscape history and proximity to forest edges. Sample plots were located in young and older forest stands (distinguished based on an 1880 map for forest cover) at varying distances from the forest edge. All five plant taxa were rarer in plots near forest edges, although diversity was more strongly influenced by landscape history. A sixth herbaceous species, one dispersed by vertebrates, was not influenced by forest edge proximity. The most effective seed-collecting ant, Aphaenogaster rudis, was less common in forest edge plots relative to interior plots, and predation pressure by small mammals was almost twice as great in plots near forest edges. Exclusion experiments demonstrated that ants (mutualists) and rodents (seed predators) compete for access to seeds, that ants can provide seeds some protection from mammal predation in most plots, and that the density of ant-dispersed plants is correlated with the proportion of rodent-accessible seeds that are collected by Aphaenogaster. Greater predation pressure and a paucity of ant mutualists may contribute to the rarity of ant-dispersed plants in edge habitats relative to forest interiors. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available