4.0 Article

Seed dispersal in the Iberian pear, Pyrus bourgaeana: A role for infrequent mutualists

期刊

ECOSCIENCE
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 311-321

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.2980/16-3-3253

关键词

badger; carnivorous mammals; escape hypothesis; frugivory; infrequent mutualists; Meles meles; post-dispersal seed survival; seed dispersal

类别

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Medio Ambiente [15/2003]
  2. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [CGL2007-63488/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seed dispersal by animals is a key interaction, with effects on the population ecology and evolution of many plant lineages. Despite the fact that infrequent seed dispersers can potentially provide important services to plant populations, little attention has been paid so far to scarce mutualists. We assessed different aspects of quantity and quality of seed dispersal from fruit removal to seed germination in the Iberian pear, Pyrus bourgaeana, finding that fruit consumers markedly differed in the nature of their interaction with the tree. Whereas the abundant rodents, rabbits, and deer damaged all seeds eaten, the uncommon carnivores badger and fox and the abundant boars dispersed a large fraction of ingested seeds as viable propagules, acting as legitimate seed dispersers. Despite low rates of visitation by badgers to fruiting trees, they transported more viable seeds than the abundant boars, due to better seed treatment and a higher feeding rate on pears. Seed dispersal by all 3 legitimate dispersers, especially the badger, enhanced post-dispersal P. bourgaeana seed survival, supporting the escape predation hypothesis. Pyrus bourgaeana showed relatively high frequencies of visits by a myriad of frugivores; however, it relied on the dispersal service provided by an infrequent carnivore, the badger, rather than on those provided by the abundant mammalian herbivores. Therefore, under some circumstances, uncommon animal counterparts play major roles in their mutualistic interactions with flowering plants.

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

4.0
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