Advertisement

Fragmentation modifies seed trait effects on scatter-hoarders’ foraging decisions

Abstract

Scatter-hoarding animals are crucial in seed dispersal of nut-bearing plants. We used the holm oak Quercus ilex—wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus mutualism as a model system to evaluate the relative importance of seed size and fat content on scatter-hoarders’ foraging decisions influencing oak dispersal and potential recruitment. We performed a field experiment in which we offered holm oak acorns with contrasting seed size (2 vs 5 g) and fat content (3 vs 11%). Moreover, to test if the strength of these seed trait effects was context-dependent, experimental acorns were placed in small fragments, where natural regeneration is scarce or absent, and forest habitats. In small fragments, rodents had to face increased intraspecific competition for acorns and reduced anti-predator cover during transportation. As a result, they became more selective to ensure rapid acquisition of most valuable food items but, in turn, transported seeds closer to avoid unaffordable predation risks. During harvesting and caching, larger acorns were prioritized and preferentially cached. Fat content only had a minor effect in harvesting preferences. In contrast, in forest sites, where rodent abundance was four times lower and understory cover was well-developed, rodents were not selective but provided enhanced dispersal services to oaks (caching rates were 75% higher). From the plants’ perspective, our results imply that the benefits of producing costly seeds are context-dependent. Seed traits modified harvesting and caching rates only when rodents were forced to forage more efficiently in response to increased intraspecific competition. However, when landscape traits limited cache protection strategies, a more selective foraging behavior by scatter-hoarders did not result in enhanced dispersal services. Overall, our result shows that successful dispersal of acorns depends on how specific traits modulate their value and how landscape properties affect rodents’ ability to safeguard them for later consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Alejano R, Vazquez-Pique J, Carevic F, Fernandez M (2011) Do ecological and silvicultural factors influence acorn mass in Holm Oak (southwestern Spain)? Agroforest Syst 83:25–39

  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2011) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–5

  3. Delignette-Muller ML, Pouillot R, Denis JB, Dutang C (2010) Fitdistrplus: help to fit of a parametric distribution to non-censored or censored data

  4. Dey DC (2014) Sustaining oak forests in Eastern North America: regeneration and recruitment, the pillars of sustainability. For Sci 60:926–942

  5. Díaz M (1992) Rodent seed predation in cereal crop areas of central Spain—Effects of physiognomy, food availability, and predation risk. Ecography 15:77–85

  6. Díaz M, Torre I, Arrizabalaga A (2010) Relative roles of density and rainfall on the short-term regulation of Mediterranean wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus populations. Acta Theriol 55:251–260

  7. Duncan RS, Wenny DG, Spritzer MD, Whelan CJ (2002) Does human scent bias seed removal studies? Ecology 83:2630–2636

  8. Fernández I, Gómez A, Moreno P et al (2004) Variabilidad de las características de las bellotas en el Valle de los Pedroches (Córdoba). Pastos y Ganadería Extensiva; XLIV Reunión Científica de la SEEP (ed. G.C.A. García Criado B., Vázquez de Aldana, B.R.., Zabalgogeazcoa I.), pp. 317–322. SEEP

  9. Gallego D, Morán-López T, Torre I, Navarro-Castilla A, Barja I, Díaz M (2017) Context dependence of acorn handling by the Algerian mouse (Mus spretus). Acta Oecol 84:1–7

  10. Galvan JV, Jorrin Novo JJ, Gómez-Cabrera A, Ariza D, García-Olmo J, Navarro Cerrillo RM (2012) Population variability based on the morphometry and chemical composition of the acorn in Holm oak (Quercus ilex subsp. ballota Desf. Samp.). Eur J For Res 131:893–904

  11. Gálvez D, Kranstauber B, Kays RW, Jansen PA (2009) Scatter hoarding by the Central American agouti: a test of optimal cache spacing theory. Anim Behav 78:1327–1333

  12. Gea-Izquierdo G, Cañellas I, Montero G (2006) Acorn production in Spanish holm oak woodlands. Invest. Agrar 15:339–354

  13. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  14. Gómez JM (2004) Bigger is not always better: conflicting selective pressures on seed size in Quercus ilex. Evolution 58:71–80

  15. Gómez JM, Puerta-Pinero C, Schupp EW (2008) Effectiveness of rodents as local seed dispersers of Holm oaks. Oecologia 155:529–537

  16. Hochman V, Kotler BP (2007) Patch use, apprehension, and vigilance behavior of Nubian Ibex under perceived risk of predation. Behav Ecol 18:368–374

  17. Jansen PA, Bongers F, Hemerik L (2004) Seed mass and mast seeding enhance dispersal by a neotropical scatter-hoarding rodent. Ecol Monogr 74:569–589

  18. Lichti NI, Steele MA, Zhang H, Swihart RK (2014) Mast species composition alters seed fate in North American rodent-dispersed hardwoods. Ecology 95:1746–1758

  19. Lichti NI, Steele MA, Swihart RK (2017) Seed fate and decision-making processes in scatter-hoarding rodents. Biol Rev 92:474–504

  20. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165

  21. Luczaj L, Adamczak A, Duda M (2014) Tannin content in acorns (Quercus spp.) from Poland. Dendrobiology 72:103–111

  22. Martín D, Vázquez-Piqué J, Carevic F, Fernández M, Alejano R (2015) Trade-off between stem growth and acorn production in holm oak. Trees 29:825–834

  23. Mitchell WA (1990) An optimal-control theory of diet selection—the effects of resource depletion and exploitative competition. Oikos 58:16–24

  24. Moore JE, McEuen AB, Swihart RK, Contreras TA, Steele MA (2007) Determinants of seed removal distance by scatter-hoarding rodents in deciduous forests. Ecology 88:2529–2540

  25. Morán-López T, Fernández M, Alonso CL, Flores-Rentería D, Valladares F, Diaz M (2015) Effects of forest fragmentation on the oak–rodent mutualism. Oikos 124:1482–1491

  26. Morán-López T, Forner A, Flores-Rentería D, Díaz M, Valladares F (2016a) Some positive effects of the fragmentation of holm oak forests: attenuation of water stress and enhancement of acorn production. Forest Ecol Manag 370:22–30

  27. Morán-López T, Wiegand T, Morales JM, Valladares F, Díaz M (2016b) Predicting forest management effects on oak–rodent mutualisms. Oikos 125:1445–1457

  28. Muñoz A, Bonal R, Espelta JM (2012) Responses of a scatter-hoarding rodent to seed morphology: links between seed choices and seed variability. Anim Behav 84:1435–1442

  29. Perea R, Gonzalez R, San Miguel A, Gil L (2011) Moonlight and shelter cause differential seed selection and removal by rodents. Anim Behav 82:717–723

  30. Perea R, Miguel AS, Martinez-Jauregui M, Valbuena-Carabana M, Gil L (2012) Effects of seed quality and seed location on the removal of acorns and beechnuts. Eur J For Res 131:623–631

  31. Pérez-Ramos IM, Urbieta IR, Maranon T, Zavala MA, Kobe RK (2008) Seed removal in two coexisting oak species: ecological consequences of seed size, plant cover and seed-drop timing. Oikos 117:1386–1396

  32. Pesendorfer MB, Sillett TS, Koenig WD, Morrison SA (2016) Scatter-hoarding corvids as seed dispersers for oaks and pines: a review of a widely distributed mutualism and its utility to habitat restoration. Condor 118:215–237

  33. Plumer M (2003) JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling URL http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/plummer03jags.html

  34. Pons J, Pausas JG (2007) Rodent acorn selection in a Mediterranean oak landscape. Ecol Res 22:535–541

  35. Prugh LR, Golde CG (2014) Does moonlight increase predation risk? Meta-analysis reveals divergent responses of nocturnal mammals to lunar cycles. J Anim Ecol 83:504–514

  36. Puerta-Piñero C, Gómez JM, Schupp FW (2010) Spatial patterns of acorn dispersal by rodents: do acorn crop size and ungulate presence matter? Oikos 119:179–187

  37. Pulido FJ, Díaz M (2005) Regeneration of a Mediterranean oak: a whole-cycle approach. EcoScience 12:92–102

  38. Rosalino LM, Nobrega F, Santos-Reis M, Teixeira G, Rebelo R (2013) Acorn selection by the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus: a semi-controlled experiment in a mediterranean environment. Zool Sci 30(9):724–730

  39. Sage RD, Koenig WD, McLaughlin BC (2011) Fitness consequences of seed size in the valley oak Quercus lobata N, e (Fagaceae). Ann For Sci 68(3):477–484

  40. Santos T, Telleria JL (1997) Vertebrate predation on Holm Oak, Quercus ilex, acorns in a fragmented habitat: effects on seedling recruitment. For Ecol Manag 98(2):181–187

  41. Santos T, Tellería JL (1998) Efectos de la fragmentación de los bosques sobre los vertebrados de las mesetas ibéricas. Organismo Autónomo “Parques Nacionales,” Madrid, Spain

  42. Schupp EW, Jordano P, Gómez JM (2010) Seed dispersal effectiveness revisited: a conceptual review. New Phytol 188(2):333–353

  43. Smit C, den Ouden J, Díaz M (2008) Facilitation of Quercus ilex recruitment by shrubs in Mediterranean open woodlands. J Veg Sci 19(2):193–200

  44. Sunyer P, Muñoz A, Bonal R, Espelta JM (2013) The ecology of seed dispersal by small rodents: a role for predator and conspecific scents. Funct Ecol 27:1313–1321

  45. Sunyer P, Espelta JM, Bonal R, Muñoz A (2014) Seeding phenology influences wood mouse seed choices: the overlooked role of timing in the foraging decisions by seed-dispersing rodents? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1205–1213

  46. Tecklin J, McCreary DD (1991) Acorn size as a factor in early seedling growth of blue oaks. In: Proceedings of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management. October 31–November 2, 1990; Davis, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-126. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 48–53

  47. Vander Wall SB (1990) Food Hoarding in Animals. University Chicago Press, Chicago

  48. Vander Wall SB (2001) The evolutionary ecology of nut dispersal. Bot Rev 67:74–117

  49. Wang B, Chen J (2008) Tannin concentration enhances seed caching by scatter-hoarding rodents: an experiment using artificial ‘seeds’. Acta Oecol 34:379–385

  50. Wang B, Chen J (2009) Seed size, more than nutrient or tannin content, affects seed caching behavior of a common genus of Old World rodents. Ecology 90:3023–3032

  51. Wang B, Chen J (2012) Effects of fat and protein levels on foraging preferences of tannin in scatter-hoarding rodents. PLoS ONE 7:e40640

  52. Wang B, Yang XL (2014) Teasing apart the effects of seed size and energy content on rodent scatter-hoarding behavior. PLoS ONE 9:e111389

  53. Wang B, Ye CX, Cannon CH, Chen J (2013) Dissecting the decision making process of scatter-hoarding rodents. Oikos 122:1027–1034

  54. Xiao ZS, Jansen PA, Zhang ZB (2006a) Using seed-tagging methods for assessing post-dispersal seed fate in rodent-dispersed trees. Forest Ecol Manag 223:18–23

  55. Xiao ZS, Wang YS, Harris M, Zhang ZB (2006b) Spatial and temporal variation of seed predation and removal of sympatric large-seeded species in relation to innate seed traits in a subtropical forest Southwest China. Forest Ecol Manag 222:46–54

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Miguel Ángel Fernández, Xavier Rotllàn Puig, David López Quiroga and Dulce Flores Rentería for their invaluable technical support during fieldwork. Morán-López T. was beneficiary of a FPI grant (funded by the Spanish Government (BES-2011-048346) and a CONICET post-doctoral fellowship (funded by the Argentinian Government). This paper is a contribution to the Spanish-funded projects VULGLO (CGL2010–22180-C03–03), VERONICA (CGL2013-42271-P) and REMEDINAL 2 & 3 (CM S2009 AMB 1783; S2013/MAE-2719). NIR data were obtained using NIRS hardware and software provided by the NIR/MIR Spectroscopy Unit of the SCAI at the University of Cordoba, Campus de Excelencia CEIA3 (Spain).

Author information

Correspondence to T. Morán-López.

Additional information

Communicated by Elizabeth Pringle.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Model structure and priors for every response variable

Total foraging time

We modeled the total foraging time invested by mice as a Poisson process that depended on the fragmentation level (forest or fragment) and the number of acorns available. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Poisson }}(\lambda_{i,j,k} )$$
$$\log (\lambda_{i,j,k} ) = b0_{j,k} + b1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{i} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{number of acorns}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b0_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad\left ( {\mu_{k}^{b0} ,\,\sigma^{b0} } \right)$$
$$b1 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad (0, 100)$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b0} \sim {\text{normal }}\quad(\mu^{s0} ,\sigma^{s0} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{\text{k}}^{\text{s2}} = \alpha + \delta \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$

\(\sigma^{b0} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)\)

$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\mu^{s0} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s0} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta \sim {\text{normal }}\quad(0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is the total foraging time of event i at tree j in site k. b0 is the mean time invested in non-fragmented sites, b1 depicts fragmentation effects. b2 represents the effect of the number of acorns available, which depends on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b0 and b2 effect (\(b0_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} )\), centered on the site where the tree is located \(\mu_{k}^{b0} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b2}\).

Handling—searching time

We modeled proportion of time invested in handling or searching as a binomial process that depended on the fragmentation level (forest or fragment) and the number of acorns available. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Binomial }}(p_{i,j,k} , N_{i} )$$
$$\log {\text{it}}(p_{i,j,k} ) = b0_{j,k} + b1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{number of acorns}}_{\text{i}}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b0_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b0} ,\sigma^{b0} )$$
$$b1 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b0} \sim {\text{normal }}(\mu^{s0} ,\sigma^{s0} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal}} (\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s2} = \alpha + \delta \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$

\(\sigma^{b0} \sim {\text{uniform}} \quad(0, 100)\)

$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\mu^{s0} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s0} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$

where \(y _{i,j,k}\) is either the searching or the handling time of event i at tree j in site k. Here, N is the total time of the foraging ith event. b0 is the mean time invested in non-fragmented sites, b1 depicts fragmentation effects. b2 represents the effect of the number of acorns available, which depends on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b0 and b2 effect \(\left( {b0_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} } \right)\), centered on the site where the tree is located \(\mu_{k}^{b0} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b2}\).

Vigilance time

We modeled time invested in vigilance as a zero-inflated binomial process that depended on the fragmentation level (forest or forest fragment) and the number of acorns available. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Bernoulli }}(p1_{i,j,k} )$$
$$\log {\text{it}}(p1_{i,j,k} ) = a0_{j,k} + a1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$r _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Binomial}}\quad (p2_{i,j,k} , N_{i} )$$
$$\log {\text{it}}(p2_{i,j,k} ) = \chi_{i} \times \,b1_{j,k} \times {\text{number of acorns}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$a0_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{a0} ,\sigma^{a0} )$$
$$a1 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$b1_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\sigma^{b1} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{a0} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu^{s0} ,\sigma^{s0} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b1} \sim {\text{normal }}(\mu_{k}^{s1} ,\sigma^{s1} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s1} = \alpha + \delta \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\sigma^{a0} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{a1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\mu^{s0} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s0} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is whether the mouse invested time in vigilance or not during event i at tree j in site k, and \(r _{i,j,k}\) is the time invested in vigilance during event i at tree j in site k. The probability of investing time in vigilance (p1) depends on fragmentation level (forest or forest fragment). a0 is the mean time invested in non-fragmented sites and a1 depicts fragmentation effects. The proportion of time invested in vigilance (p2) depends on the number of acorns available. b2 represents the effect of the number of acorns available, which depends on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b0 and b2 effect \(\left( {a0_{j,k} , b1_{j,k} } \right)\), centered on the site where the tree is located \(\mu_{k}^{bo} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b1}\).

Depletion time

We modeled the depletion time (in seconds) as a Poisson process that depended on the fragmentation level (forest or fragment). As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{j,k} \sim {\text{Poisson}} \quad(\lambda_{j,k} )$$
$$\log (\lambda_{j,k} ) = \alpha_{i,k} + \beta \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{j}$$

Prior distributions

$$\beta \sim {\text{normal }}(0, 100)$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\alpha_{k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu^{\alpha } ,\sigma^{\alpha } )$$
$$\mu^{\alpha } \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{\alpha } \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$

\(y _{j,k}\) is the depletion time at tree j in site k. α is the mean time invested in non-fragmented sites and β depicts fragmentation effects. Each site had a mean α k .

Multiple choice model

We modeled the probability of an acorn being removed taking into account the number and types (fat content and size) of acorns available in each foraging event. This probability depended on acorns fat content and size. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Multinomial }}\left( {p_{i,j,k} , 1} \right)$$
$$p_{i,j,k} = \frac{{e_{i,j,k} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i}^{{N_{i,j,k} }} e_{i,j,k} }}$$
$$\log (e_{i,j,k} ) = b1_{j,k} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{fat content}}_{i} + b3_{j,k} \times {\text{size}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b1_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}\quad\left( {\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\sigma^{b1} } \right)$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$
$$b3_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b3} ,\sigma^{b3} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b1} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s1} ,\sigma^{s1} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal }}\quad(\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b3} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{s3} ,\sigma^{s3} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s1} = \alpha 1 + \delta 1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s2} = \alpha 2 + \delta 2 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s3} = \alpha 3 + \delta 3 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\sigma^{b1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b3} \sim {\text{uniform }}(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform }}(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s3} \sim {\text{uniform }}(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 1 \sim {\text{normal }}(0, 100)$$
$$\delta 1 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 2 \sim {\text{normal }}(0, 100)$$
$$\delta 2 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 3 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\delta 3 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is a binary variable that represents whether the acorn i at tree j in site k was removed (1), or not (0). N represents the number of acorns present in that foraging event at that tree. b1 is the probability of being removed given that the acorn is small and has low fat content, b2 is the effect of fat content, and b3 the effect of size. These effects depended on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b1, b2, and b3 effect (\(b1_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} ,b3_{j,k} )\), centered on the site where the tree was located \(\left(mu_{k}^{b1} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b3}\right)\).

First and last acorns removed

We modeled the probability of an acorn being removed first or last as a Bernoulli process that depended on their fat content and size. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Bernoulli }}(p_{i,j,k} )$$
$$\log {\text{it}}(p_{i,j,k} ) = b1_{j,k} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{fat content}}_{i} + b3_{j,k} \times {\text{size}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b1_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}\left( {\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\sigma^{b1} } \right)$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$
$$b3_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}(\mu_{k}^{b3} ,\sigma^{b3} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b1} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s1} ,\sigma^{s1} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b3} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s3} ,\sigma^{s3} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s1} = \alpha 1 + \delta 1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s2} = \alpha 2 + \delta 2 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s3} = \alpha 3 + \delta 3 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\sigma^{b1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform }}\quad(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 1 \sim normal\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 1 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 2 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 2 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 3 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 3 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is a binary variable that represents whether the acorn i at tree j in site k was removed first/last (1), or not (0). b1 is the probability of being removed first or last given that the acorn is small and has low fat content, b2 the effect of fat content, and b3 the effect of size. These effects depended on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b1, b2, and b3 effect (\(b1_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} ,b3_{j,k} )\), centered on the site where the tree was located \(\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\;\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\;\mu_{k}^{b3}\).

Dispersal distance

We modeled how far the mice transported the acorns with a normal distribution. We used a logarithmic transformation in other to meet normality. Dispersal distances depended on acorns fat content and size. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$\log (y _{i,j,k} ) \sim {\text{normal }}(\mu_{i,j,k} , \sigma )$$
$$\mu_{i,j,k} = b1_{j,k} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{fat content}}_{i} + b3_{j,k} \times {\text{size}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b1_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\sigma^{b1} )$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$
$$b3_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}(\mu_{k}^{b3} ,\sigma^{b3} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b1} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{s1} ,\sigma^{s1} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b3} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s3} ,\sigma^{s3} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s1} = \alpha 1 + \delta 1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s2} = \alpha 2 + \delta 2 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s3} = \alpha 3 + \delta 3 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\sigma \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 1 \sim {\text{normal }}(0, 100)$$
$$\delta 1 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 2 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 2 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 3 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 3 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is the distance acorn i at tree j in site k was dispersed. b1 is the mean distance mice transport seeds given they are small and have low fat content, b2 the effect of fat content, and b3 the effect of size. These effects depended on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b1, b2, and b3 effect (\(b1_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} ,b3_{j,k} )\), centered on the site where the tree was located \(\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\;\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\;\mu_{k}^{b3}\).

Cached

We modeled if mice consumed or stored the acorns as a Bernoulli process that depended on acorn fat content and size. As acorns were in trees located within sites, we introduced tree nested in site as random factors.

$$y _{i,j,k} \sim {\text{Bernoulli}}\quad (p_{i,j,k} )$$
$$\log {\text{it}}(p_{i,j,k} ) = b1_{j,k} + b2_{j,k} \times {\text{fat content}}_{i} + b3_{j,k} \times {\text{size}}_{i}$$

Prior distributions—parameters at tree level

$$b1_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}\quad(\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\sigma^{b1} )$$
$$b2_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal }}\quad(\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\sigma^{b2} )$$
$$b3_{j,k} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{b3} ,\sigma^{b3} )$$

Hyper-prior distributions—parameters at site level

$$\mu_{k}^{b1} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s1} ,\sigma^{s1} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b2} \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(\mu_{k}^{s2} ,\sigma^{s2} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{b3} \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (\mu_{k}^{s3} ,\sigma^{s3} )$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s1} = \alpha 1 + \delta 1 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s2} = \alpha 2 + \delta 2 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\mu_{k}^{s3} = \alpha 3 + \delta 3 \times {\text{fragmentation}}_{k}$$
$$\sigma^{b1} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b2} \sim {\text{uniform}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{b3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s1} \sim {\text{uniform }}\,(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s2} \sim {\text{uniform}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\sigma^{s3} \sim {\text{uniform}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 1 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 1 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 2 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 2 \sim {\text{normal}} \quad(0, 100)$$
$$\alpha 3 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$
$$\delta 3 \sim {\text{normal}}\quad (0, 100)$$

\(y _{i,j,k}\) is a binary variable that represents whether the acorn i at tree j in site k was cached (1), or not (0). b1 is the probability of being cached given that the acorn is small and has low fat content, b2 the effect of fat content and b3 the effect of size. These effects depended on forest fragmentation (α and δ). Each focal tree had a mean b1, b2, and b3 effect (\(b1_{j,k} , b2_{j,k} ,b3_{j,k} )\), centered on the site where the tree was located \(\mu_{k}^{b1} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b2} ,\,\mu_{k}^{b3} \,\).

Appendix 2

See Table 4.

Table 4 Location and area of forest fragments used in the study

Appendix 3 Posterior predictive checks of Bayesian models

Mouse foraging activity

See Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Fig. 4
figure4

Posterior predictive check of models of fragmentation effects on depletion time. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 5
figure5

Posterior predictive check of models of fragmentation effects on total foraging time. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 6
figure6

Posterior predictive check of models of fragmentation effects on proportion of time invested in acorn handling. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 7
figure7

Posterior predictive check of models of fragmentation effects on proportion of time invested in vigilant behaviors. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Mouse foraging decisions

See Figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Fig. 8
figure8

Posterior predictive check of models of the probability of an acorn being removed during the first three foraging bouts. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 9
figure9

Posterior predictive check of models of the probability of an acorn being removed during the first three foraging bouts. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 10
figure10

Posterior predictive check of models of acorn transportation distances. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Fig. 11
figure11

Posterior predictive check of models of the probability of an acorn being cached. Blue dots represent mean values of data; bars represent credible intervals of model predictions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morán-López, T., Valladares, F., Tiribelli, F. et al. Fragmentation modifies seed trait effects on scatter-hoarders’ foraging decisions. Plant Ecol 219, 325–342 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-018-0798-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Acorn dispersal fragmentation
  • Size
  • Fat
  • Competition
  • Risk