4.7 Article

Morphology predicts species' functional roles and their degree of specialization in plant-frugivore interactions

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2444

关键词

ecological networks; fleshy-fruited plants; frugivorous birds; functional diversity; mutualistic interactions; traits

资金

  1. research funding programme 'LOEWE-Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-okonomischer Exzellenz' of Hesse's Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts
  2. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  3. Spanish MINECO [SEV-2012-0262]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species' functional roles in key ecosystem processes such as predation, pollination or seed dispersal are determined by the resource use of consumer species. An interaction between resource and consumer species usually requires trait matching (e.g. a congruence in the morphologies of interaction partners). Species' morphology should therefore determine species' functional roles in ecological processes mediated by mutualistic or antagonistic interactions. We tested this assumption for Neotropical plant-bird mutualisms. We used a new analytical framework that assesses a species's functional role based on the analysis of the traits of its interaction partners in a multidimensional trait space. We employed this framework to test (i) whether there is correspondence between the morphology of bird species and their functional roles and (ii) whether morphologically specialized birds fulfil specialized functional roles. We found that morphological differences between bird species reflected their functional differences: (i) bird species with different morphologies foraged on distinct sets of plant species and (ii) morphologically distinct bird species fulfilled specialized functional roles. These findings encourage further assessments of species' functional roles through the analysis of their interaction partners, and the proposed analytical framework facilitates a wide range of novel analyses for network and community ecology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据