4.7 Article

Diet complementation as a frequency-dependent mechanism conferring advantages to rare plants via dispersal

期刊

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 2310-2320

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.13152

关键词

advantage of the rare; diet complementation; frugivory; negative frequency-dependent; rarity

类别

资金

  1. National Science foundation, NSF [DEB-1556719]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. We used an agent-based model to test the hypothesis that diet complementation by frugivores can promote the persistence of rare plant species in communities (DCH). 2. Models simulated bird movement, frugivory, seed dispersal and plant recruitment on landscapes that differed in their degree of fragmentation and in their degree of fruiting species mixing at the scale of frugivores' foraging decisions. 3. Diet complementation promoted the dispersal of rare species without the need of a priori preference from birds. The effects of landscape structure on the dispersal of rare plants were small (<5%) compared to positive effects of diet complementation because birds tracked the nutrients contained in rare fruits to balance their diets. However, resource-tracking of rare fruits increased foraging costs up to 20% of net energy intakes. 4. During postdispersal stages, density-dependent mortality only conferred advantages to rare plants when located within heterospecific plant patches. Still, thanks to rare-biased dispersal, rare plants showed the highest seed dispersal effectiveness irrespectively of landscape configuration. 5. Our theoretical approach presents a behavioural mechanism by which fruit choice can act as a frequency-dependent mechanism conferring rare species advantages as important as classic postdispersal density-dependent processes. 6. We hope that this study stimulates future work aimed at evaluating the importance of diet complementation in structuring the composition and spatial patterning of plant communities.

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