Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 102, Issue 3, pp 377–388 | Cite as

Seed size in tropical trees: a comparative study of factors affecting seed size in Peruvian angiosperms

  • Colleen K. Kelly
Original Paper

Abstract

Evolutionary comparative methods taking into account the potential effects of relatedness reveal that, among 202 species of animal-dispersed tropical woody angiosperms from Peru, large seeds may be an adaptation to: (1) dispersal by mammals rather than by birds and (2) greater plant height. Using the most powerful techniques currently available, appropriate comparisons were made between related species or species groups at all taxonomic levels, thus allowing use of all species in the data set. Even so, the results show no evidence of adaptation (i.e., a functional relationship) of seed mass to successional syndrome or to growth form (trees or vines). In previous cross-species analyses, seed mass has been linked to both of these ecological variables. The lack of relationship between seed mass and habitat use or growth form may be due to targeting the wrong trait to predict these two variables, or because seed mass is subject to exaptation, i.e., a particular seed mass has arisen for other reasons, but allows invasion into a habitat and currently serves to maintain that species in the habitat. Differentiation between these two explanations for the lack of correlation between seed mass and successional syndrome or growth form would entail species-by-species examination of the function of seed mass under natural conditions. The effect of relatedness on the ecological correlates of seed mass and plant height is determined for each of three taxonomic schemes. It is concluded that the three schemes do not differ greatly in the results obtained.

Key words

Taxonomic relatedness Seed size Seedling establishment conditions Tropical trees Comparative ecology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Augspurger CK (1984) Light requirements of neotropical tree seedlings: a comparative study of growth and survival. J Ecol 72: 777–795Google Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1972) Seed weight in relation to environmental conditions in California Ecology 53: 997–1010Google Scholar
  3. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH (1984) Comparative approaches to investigating adaptation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 7–29Google Scholar
  4. Cronquist A (1981) An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125: 1–15Google Scholar
  6. Felsenstein J (1988) Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19: 445–471Google Scholar
  7. Foster SA, Janson CH (1985) The relationship between seed size and establishment conditions in tropical woody plants. Ecology 66: 773–780Google Scholar
  8. Garland T Jr, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using independent contrasts. Syst Biol 41: 18–32Google Scholar
  9. Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation — a missing term in the science of form. Palaeobiology 8: 4–15Google Scholar
  10. Grafen A (1989) The phylogenetic regression. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 326: 327–356Google Scholar
  11. Harper JL, Lovell PH, Moore KG (1970) The shapes and sizes of seeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1: 327–356Google Scholar
  12. Harvey PH (1991) Comparing uncertain relationships: the Swedes in revolt. Trends Ecol Evol 6: 38–39Google Scholar
  13. Harvey PH, Krebs JR (1990) Comparing brains. Science 249: 140–146Google Scholar
  14. Harvey PH, Mace GM (1982) Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology. In: K. C. S. Group (eds) Current problems in sociobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343–361Google Scholar
  15. Harvey P, Pagel M (1991) The evolutionary method in comparative biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey PH, Purvis A (1991) Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature 351: 619–624Google Scholar
  17. Harvey PH, Pagel MD, Rees JA (1991) Mammalian metabolism and life histories. Am Nat 137: 556–566Google Scholar
  18. Kelly CK, Purvis A (1993) Seed size and establishment conditions in tropical trees: on the use of taxonomic relatedness in determining ecological patterns. Oecologia 94: 356–360Google Scholar
  19. Martins EP, Garland T Jr (1991) Phylogenetic analysis of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45: 435–457Google Scholar
  20. Mazer SJ (1989) Taxonomic, ecological and life-history correlates of seed mass among Indiana Dune angiosperms. Ecol Monogr 59: 153–175Google Scholar
  21. Mazer SJ (1990) Seed mass of Indiana Dune genera and families: taxonomic and ecological correlates. Evol Ecol 4: 326–357Google Scholar
  22. Pagel MD P (1992) A method for the analysis of comparative data. J Theor Biol 156: 431–442Google Scholar
  23. Pagel MD, Harvey PH (1988) Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data. Q Rev Biol 63: 413–440Google Scholar
  24. Pagel MD, Harvey PH, Godfray HCJ (1991) Species-abundance, biomass, and resource-use distributions. Am Nat 138: 836–850Google Scholar
  25. Purvis A (1991) Comparative analysis by independent contrasts, version 1.2. Department of Zoology, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Purvis A (1992) Comparative methods: theory and practice. D Phil thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Luh H-K (1993) Truth or consequences: effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. J Theor Biol 167: 293–300Google Scholar
  28. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Salisbury EJ (1942) The reproductive capacity of plants. Bell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. Takhtajan AL (1980) Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). Bot Rev 46: 225–359Google Scholar
  33. Thorne RF (1983) Proposed new realignments in the angiosperms. Nord J Bot 3: 85–117Google Scholar
  34. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colleen K. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Ecología, UNAMCiudad UniversitaríaMéxico

Personalised recommendations