Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:19:36.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying keystone plant resources in an Amazonian forest using a long-term fruit-fall record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2014

Zoë Diaz-Martin ,
Varun Swamy ,
John Terborgh ,
Patricia Alvarez-Loayza  and
Fernando Cornejo
Zoë Diaz-Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Studies, Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Ave, New London, CT 06320, USA
Varun Swamy*
Affiliation:
Center for Tropical Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708, USA Harvard Forest, 324 North Main Street, Petersham, MA 01366, USA
John Terborgh
Affiliation:
Center for Tropical Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Patricia Alvarez-Loayza
Affiliation:
Center for Tropical Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Fernando Cornejo
Affiliation:
Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 509 Pecan Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102, USA
*
1Corresponding author. Email: vs12@duke.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The keystone plant resources (KPR) concept describes certain plant species in tropical forests as vital to community stability and diversity because they provide food resources to vertebrate consumers during the season of scarcity. Here, we use an 8-y, continuous record of fruit fall from a 1.44-ha mature forest stand to identify potential KPRs in a lowland western Amazonian rain forest. KPRs were identified based on four criteria: temporal non-redundancy; year-to-year reliability; abundance of reproductive-size individuals and inferred fruit crop size; and the variety of vertebrate consumers utilizing their fruit. Overall, seven species were considered excellent KPRs: two of these belong to the genus Ficus, confirming that this taxon is a KPR as previously suggested. Celtis iguanaea (Cannabaceae) – a canopy liana – has also been previously classified as a KPR; in addition, Pseudomalmea diclina (Annonaceae), Cissus ulmifolia (Vitaceae), Allophylus glabratus (Sapindaceae) and Trichilia elegans (Meliaceae) are newly identified KPRs. Our results confirm that a very small fraction (<5%) of the plant community consistently provides fruit for a broad set of consumers during the period of resource scarcity, which has significant implications for the conservation and management of Amazonian forests.

Keywords

AmazonCocha CashuFicusfrugivorykeystone plant resourcesMadre de DiosPeruprimates
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 291 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ALVAREZ-BUYLLA, E. R. & MARTÍNEZ-RAMOS, M. 1992. Demography and allometry of Cecropia obtusifolia, a neotropical pioneer tree – an evaluation of the climax-pioneer paradigm for tropical rain forests. Journal of Ecology 80:275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALVAREZ-LOAYZA, P., WHITE, J. & GIRALDO, C. C. 2008. First report of Aspergillus flavus colonizing naturally dispersed seeds of Oxandra acuminata, Pseudomalmea diclina, and Unonopsis matthewsii in Peru. Plant Disease 92:974.Google Scholar
ANDRESEN, E. 2008. Frugivory and primary seed dispersal by spider monkeys (Ateles panicus) and howler monkeys (Aloutta seniculus), and the fate of dispersed seeds at Manu National Peru. Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, Durham.Google Scholar
BOND, W. J. 1993. Keystone species. Pp. 237–250 in Schulze, E. D. & Mooney, H. A. (eds.). Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
BUNCE, J. 2009. Ecology and genetics of color vision in Callicebus brunneus, a neotropical monkey. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
BURNHAM, R. J. 2002. Dominance, diversity and distribution of lianas in Yasuní, Ecuador: who is on top? Journal of Tropical Ecology 18:845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CASTRO, R. 1991. Behavioral ecology of two coexisting tamarin species (Saguinus fuscicollis nigrifrons) and (Saguinus mystax mystax), in Amazonian Peru. Ph.D. thesis, Washington University, Saint Louis.Google Scholar
CINTRA, R. 1997. Leaf litter effects on seed and seedling predation of the palm Astrocaryum murumuru and the legume tree Dipteryx micrantha in Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:709–725.Google Scholar
CORNEJO, F. & JANOVEC, J. 2010. Seeds of Amazonian plants. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 186 pp.Google Scholar
GALETTI, M. 2000. Frugivory by toucans (Ramphastidae) at two altitudes in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biotropica 32:842–850.Google Scholar
GENTRY, A. H. 1993. A field guide to the families and genera of woody plants of northwest South America (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru) with supplementary notes on herbaceous taxa. Conservation International, Washington, DC. 895 pp.Google Scholar
GIBSON, K. N. 2008. Mating tactics and socioecology of male white-bellied spider monkeys (Ateles belzebuth chamek). Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
JANSON, C. H. & EMMONS, L. H. 1990. Ecological structure of the nonflying mammal community at Cocha Cashu Biological Station, Manu National Park, Peru. Pp. 314–338 in Gentry, A. H. (ed.). Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
JULLIOT, C. 1996. Seed dispersal by red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus) in the tropical rain forest, at the Nourague station French Guiana. International Journal of Primatology 17:239–258.Google Scholar
KALKO, E. K. V. & CONDON, M. A. 1998. Echolocation, olfaction and fruit display: how bats find fruit of flagellichorous cucurbits. Functional Ecology 12:364–372.Google Scholar
KAYS, R. W. 1999. Food preferences of kinkajous: a frugivorous carnivore. Journal of Mammalogy 80:589–599.Google Scholar
KRICHER, J. C. 2011. Tropical ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 640 pp.Google Scholar
LAMBERT, F. R. & MARSHALL, A. G. 1991. Keystone characteristics of bird-dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. Journal of Ecology 79:793–809.Google Scholar
LEIGHTON, M. & LEIGHTON, D. R. 1983. Vertebrate responses to fruiting seasonality within a Bornean rain forest. Pp. 181–196 in Sutton, S. L., Whitmore, T. C. & Chadwick, A. C. (eds). Tropical rain forests: ecology and management. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
MABBERLEY, D. J. 1992. Tropical rain forest ecology. (Second edition). Chapman and Hall, New York. 300 pp.Google Scholar
MCMANUS, E. M. 2003. Primary succession of liana in an Amazonian floodplain forest. Master of Science thesis, Wake Forest University, Wake Forest.Google Scholar
MELUK, H. M. & RODRIGUEZ, L. F. B. 1999. Ecologia basica de Cebus apella en la region del Bajo Apaporis, Amazonia Colombiana. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
MITCHELL, C. L. 1999. The ecological basis for the female social dominance: a behavioral study of the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureu) in the wild. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
NABE-NIELSEN, J. 2001. Diversity and distribution of lianas in a neotropical rain forest, Yasuní National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17:1–19.Google Scholar
PAINE, R. T. 1969. The Pisaster–Tegula interaction: prey patches, predator food preference, and intertidal community structure. Ecology 50:950–961.Google Scholar
PERES, C. A. 2000. Identifying keystone plant resources in tropical forests: the case of gums from Parkia pods. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:287–317.Google Scholar
PODOLSKY, B. 1985. Ecological costs and benefits of associations between squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Ph.D thesis, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
POWER, M. E., TILMAN, D., ETES, J. A., MENGE, B. A., BOND, W. J., MILLS, L. S., DAILY, G., CASTILLA, J. C., LUBCHENCO, J. & PAINE, R. T. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46:609–620.Google Scholar
RAMIREZ, M. M. 1989. Feeding ecology and demography of the moustached tamarin “Saguinus Mystax” in northeastern Peru. Ph.D. thesis, The City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
ROMO, M. C. 1996. Seasonal variation in fruit consumption and seed dispersal by canopy bats (Artibeus) in a lowland Forest in Peru. Vida Silvestre Tropical 5:110–119.Google Scholar
ROMO, M., TUOMISTO, H. & LOISELLE, B. A. 2004. On the density-dependence of seed predation in Dipteryx micrantha, a bat-dispersed rain forest tree. Oecologia 140:76–85.Google Scholar
RUSSO, S. E. 2003. Responses of dispersal agents to tree and fruit traits in Virola calophylla (Myristicaceae): implications for selection. Oecologia 136:80–87.Google Scholar
SHERMAN, P. 1991. The ecology and social behavior of the White-Winged Trumpeter (Psophia leucoptera). Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
STEVENSON, P., CASTELLANOS, M., PIZARRO, J. & GARAVITO, M. 2002. Effects of seed dispersal by three Ateline monkey species on seed germination at Tinigua National Park, Colombia. International Journal of Primatology 23:1187–1204.Google Scholar
SWAMY, V. 2008. Fruit to sapling: an ontogenetically integrated study of tree recruitment in an Amazonian rainforest. Ph.D. thesis. Duke University, Durham.Google Scholar
SYMINGTON, M. M. F. 1987. Ecological and social correlates of party size in the Black Spider Monkey, Ateles Paniscus Chamek. Ph.D thesis, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1983. Five new world primates: a study in comparative ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 280 pp.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1986a. Keystone plant resources in the tropical forest. Pp. 330–344 in Soule, M. E. & Wilcox, B. A. (eds). Conservation biology: an evolutionary–ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1986b. Community aspects of frugivory in tropical forests. Pp. 371–384 in Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr. W. Junk Publishing, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1990. An overview of research at Cocha Cashu Biological Station. Pp. 48–59 in Gentry, A. H. (ed.). Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J., NUÑEZ-ITURRI, G., PITMAN, N. C. A., VALVERDE, F. H. C., ALVAREZ, P., SWAMY, V., PRINGLE, E. G. & PAINE, C. E. T. 2008. Tree recruitment in an empty forest. Ecology 89:1757–1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN ROOSMALEN, M. G. M. 1985. Fruits of the Guianan flora. Institute of Systematic Botany, Utrecht. 483 pp.Google Scholar
VAN SCHAIK, C. P., TERBORGH, J. W. & WRIGHT, S. J. 1993. The phenology of tropical forests: adaptive significance and consequences for primary consumers. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 23:353–377.Google Scholar
WEHNCKE, E. V., HUBBELL, S. P., FOSTER, R. B. & DALLING, J. W. 2003. Seed dispersal patterns produced by white-faced monkeys: implications for the dispersal limitation of neotropical tree species. Journal of Ecology 91:677–685.Google Scholar
WEHNCKE, E. V., VALDEZ, C. N. & DOMINGUEZ, C. A. 2004. Seed dispersal and defecation patterns of Cebus capucinus and Alouatta palliata: consequences for seed dispersal effectiveness. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:535–543.Google Scholar
WHITMORE, T. C. 1998. An introduction to tropical rain forests. (Second edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford. 282 pp.Google Scholar
WRIGHT, P. C. 1985. The costs and benefits of nocturnality for Aotus trivirgatus (the night monkey). Ph.D. thesis, The City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
WRIGHT, S. J. & VAN SCHAIK, C. P. 1994. Light and the phenology of tropical trees. American Naturalist 143:192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar