Handling by avian frugivores affects diaspore secondary removal

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 13; no. 8; p. e0202435
• Main Authors: Guerra, Tadeu J., Messeder, João V. S., Arruda, André J., Fuzessy, Lisieux F., Dayrell, Roberta L. C., Neves, Frederico S., Silveira, Fernando A. O.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 29.08.2018; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Animal behavior; Animals; Ants; Biology and Life Sciences; Birds; Birds - physiology; Brazil; Conspecifics; Cost benefit analysis; Crop production; Diaspore; Dispersal; Dispersion; Factorial experiments; Fauna; Feeding behavior; Flowers & plants; Food Chain; Forests; Frugivores; Frugivory; Fruits; Handling; Lizards; Male; Models, Biological; Population Dynamics; Predators; Pulp; Rodents; Seed dispersal; Seeds; Variation; Vertebrates; Brazil
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202435
• ISSN: 1932-6203

The balance between the costs and benefits of fleshy fruit production depends on the feeding behavior of their seed dispersers, which might effectively disperse seeds to farther areas or drop beneath parent plants some diaspores they handle during frugivory bouts. Nevertheless, the consequences of variation in fruit handling by primary seed dispersers on the secondary removal of diaspores remains poorly understood. We conducted a field study to determine how variation in fruit handling by avian frugivores affects short-term secondary removal of Miconia irwinii (Melastomataceae) diaspores by the ground-dwelling fauna in campo rupestre vegetation, southeastern Brazil. We conducted factorial experiments manipulating: (1) different outcomes of primary fruit/seed removal by birds, (2) distances of diaspore deposition from conspecifics, and (3) the access of ants and vertebrates to diaspores. We showed that secondary removal of diaspores was highly variable at the population scale, with an overall low removal rate by the ground-dwelling fauna (13% seeds, 19% fruits). However, we found that gut-passed seeds embedded in bird feces were less removed than seeds expelled from fruits. Gut-passed seeds were more likely to be removed by ant species acting as secondary dispersers, whereas pulp-free seeds dropped by birds were likely to interact with potential seed predators, including ants and rodents. We found no clear effect of dispersal from parent plant vicinity on seed removal, but fruit removal was significantly higher near parent plants. Partially defleshed fruits were more removed than intact fruits. The removal of fruits by ant and vertebrate rescuers, including lizards and birds, might reduce the costs of interactions with less effective dispersers that drop partially defleshed fruits under parent plants. Our study highlights that variation in fruit handling by primary avian seed dispersers mediate subsequent interactions among discarded diaspores and ground-dwelling animals, potentially affecting final seed fates. Moreover, we argue that escape-related benefits of dispersal can be contingent on how primary dispersers handle and discard seeds.