4.2 Article

Seed Dispersal in the Dark: Shedding Light on the Role of Fruit Bats in Africa

期刊

BIOTROPICA
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 450-456

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/btp.12029

关键词

Amani Nature Reserve; bat roosts; East Usambara Mountains; forest regeneration; frugivory; Pteropodidae; Tanzania

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 0089598, DEB 0344583, DGE 0549245, DGE 097994]
  2. Field Museum's Council on Africa
  3. Bat Conservation International
  4. American Society of Mammalogists
  5. Wildlife Conservation Society
  6. Garden Club of America
  7. Roosevelt University
  8. University of Dar es Salaam
  9. University of Illinois at Chicago
  10. Rainforest Conservation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of their recognized importance as seed dispersers in other parts of the tropics, seed dispersal by fruit bats has received scant research attention in Africa. To evaluate the role of African fruit bats in seed dispersal, we studied fruits and seeds below 480 bat feeding roosts in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. We compared these findings to those reported in other African localities to place our results in a broader context. We found 49 plant species dispersed by bats: 28 species, 18 genera, and one family are novel reports of bat dispersal in Africa. Approximately 20 percent of the submontane tree flora of the East Usambaras is bat-dispersed, including both widespread and endemic trees. African fruit bats are important seed dispersers at our study site because they move seeds of dozens of species tens or hundreds of meters, even seeds that are too large to ingest (greater than 5mm in length). Fruit bats are likely important seed dispersers in other Afrotropical forests, as bats elsewhere in Africa are known to consume 20 genera and 16 species of plants reported here. Insights from studying remains under bat feeding roosts offer a simple method to further document and substantially increase our understanding of the role of African fruit bats in seed dispersal.

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

4.2
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