4.5 Article

Seeds redistribution in sand dunes: a basis for coexistence of two rodent species

期刊

OIKOS
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 325-335

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12948.x

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity is a major factor structuring communities and contributing to coexistence of the species they contain. In this study we examine a critical aspect of environmental heterogeneity that is assumed to promote coexistence in two gerbil species of the Western Negev Desert. Previous studies assumed that temporal partitioning, in activity time, is the result of daily redistribution of seeds that the dominant species is the first to utilize while the sub-ordinate and efficient species is being pushed to use the later and poorer part of the night. We tested the assumption that daily afternoon winds generating spatial and temporal heterogeneity in seed availability by the redistribution of sand and seeds. This was done by comparing plots experiencing normal wind condition with manipulated plots where wind action was diminished by a shade-cloth fence. Our results show that considerable amount of sand and seeds are redistributing regularly on a time scale of a single day. Our results also show that gerbil foraging behavior is strongly related to the pattern of the redistribution dynamics of the seeds. When we prevented redistribution of seeds, gerbil foraging activity was reduced considerably. However, both seed redistribution and gerbil activity did not change much on control plots. Furthermore, the two gerbil species responded differently to the reduction in seed redistribution. The larger Gerbillus pyramidum was shown to be more sensitive to the reduction than the smaller G. a. allenbyi. Daily variability in the availability of seed resources is probably the niche axis which, together with the trade-off in foraging efficiency of the species, forms the mechanism for the coexistence of the two gerbil species in the semi-stabilized sands.

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

4.5
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