4.3 Article

Cache placement, pilfering, and a recovery advantage in a seed-dispersing rodent: Could predation of scatter hoarders contribute to seedling establishment?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2011.05.002

关键词

Scatter hoarding; Pilfering; Seed dispersal; Cache recovery; Eastern gray squirrel; Sciurus; Quercus

类别

资金

  1. Wilkes University Mentoring Initiative
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB-0642434, DEB-0642504]
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scatter-hoarding mammals are thought to rely on spatial memory to relocate food caches. Yet, we know little about how long these granivores (primarily rodents) recall specific cache locations or whether individual hoarders have an advantage when recovering their own caches. Indeed, a few recent studies suggest that high rates of pilferage are common and that individual hoarders may not have a retriever's advantage. We tested this hypothesis in a high-density (>7 animals/ha) population of eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) by presenting individually marked animals (>20) with tagged acorns, mapping cache sites, and following the fate of seed caches. PIT tags allowed us to monitor individual seeds without disturbing cache sites. Acorns only remained in the caches for 12-119 h (0.5-5 d). However, when we live-trapped and removed some animals from the site immediately after they stored seeds (thus simulating predation), their seed caches remained intact for significantly longer periods (16-27 d). Cache duration corresponded roughly to the time at which squirrels were returned to the study area. These results suggest that squirrels have a retriever's advantage and may remember specific cache sites longer than previously thought. We further suggest that predation of scatter hoarders who store seeds for long periods and also possess a recovery advantage may be one important mechanism by which seed establishment is achieved. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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