Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 130, Issue 4, pp 669–676 | Cite as

Dispersal of remnant endangered trees in a fragmented and disturbed forest by frugivorous birds

  • Ning Li
  • Bing Bai
  • Xin-hai Li
  • Shu-qing An
  • Chang-hu Lu
Regular Paper

Abstract

Most endangered plant species in a fragmented forest behave as a unique source population, with a high dependence on frugivorous birds for recruitment and persistence. In this study, we combined field data of dispersal behavior of birds and GIS information of patch attributes to estimate how frugivorous birds could affect the effective dispersal pattern of Chinese yew (Taxus chinensis) in a fragmented and disturbed forest. Nine bird species were observed to visit T. chinensis trees, with Urocissa erythrorhyncha, Zoothera dauma and Picus canus being the most common dispersers. After foraging, six disperser species exhibited different perching patterns. Three specialist species, P. canus, Turdus hortulorum, and Z. dauma stayed in the source patch, while three generalist species, U. erythrorhyncha, Hypsipetes mcclellandii, and H. castanonotus, could perch in bamboo patches and varied in movement ability due to body size. As a consequence of perching, dispersers significantly contributed to the seed bank, but indirectly affected seedling recruitment. Moreover, the recruitment of T. chinensis was also affected by patch attributes in a fragmented forest (distances to source patch, patch type, size). Our results highlighted the ability of unique source population regeneration of T. chinensis in a fragmented forest, with high dependence on both frugivorous birds and patch attributes, which should be considered in future planning for forest management and conservation.

Keywords

Frugivorous birds Effective dispersal pattern Fragmented forest Seed dispersal function Taxus chinensis 

Supplementary material

10265_2017_915_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 2743 KB)

References

  1. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breitbach N, Laube I, Steffan-Dewenter I, Bohning-Gaese K (2010) Bird diversity and seed dispersal along a human land-use gradient: high seed removal in structurally simple farmland. Oecologia 162:965–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlo TA, García D, Martínez D, Geditsch JM, Morales JM (2013) Where do seeds go when they go far? Distance and directionality of avian seed dispersal in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecology 94:301–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen M, Zhao XY, Zuo XA, Mao W, Qu H, Zhu YC (2016) Effects of habitat disturbance on the pollination system of Ammopiptanthus mongolicus (Maxim) Cheng f. at the landscape-level in an arid region of Northwest China. J Plant Res 129:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cordeiro NJ, Howe HF (2003) Forest fragmentation severs mutualism between seed dispersers and an endemic African tree. PNAS 100:14052–14054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Côrtes M, Uriarte M (2013) Integrating frugivore behavior and animal movement: a review of the evidence and implication for scaling seed dispersal. Biol Rev 88:255–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. González-Castro A, Calviño-Cancela M, Nogales M (2015) Comparing seed dispersal effectiveness by frugivores at the community level. Ecology 96:808–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrera JM, Morales JM, García D (2011) Differential effects of fruit availability and habitat cover for frugivore-mediated seed dispersal in an heterogeneous landscape. J Ecol 99:1100–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holyoak M, Heath SK (2016) The integration of climate change, spatial dynamics, and habitat fragmentation: a conceptual overview. Integ Zool 11:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordano P, Schupp EW (2000) Determinants of seed disperser effectiveness: the quantity component and patterns of seed rain for Prunus mahaleb. Ecol Monog 70:591–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordano P, García C, Godoy JA, García-Castaño JL (2007) Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. PNAS 104:3278–3282CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Levey DJ, Bolker BM, Tewksbury JJ, Sargent S, Haddad NM (2005) Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds. Science 309:146–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Li XK, Huang YQ, Su ZM (2000) Distribution pattern and its dynamics of Taxus chinensis var. mairei population on Yunbaoshan Mountain. Chin J Appl Ecol 11:169–172Google Scholar
  17. Li N, An SQ, Fu WY, Lu CH (2015a) Ecological rescue of remnant fengshui trees in farmlands by avian frugivores. Plant Ecol Diver 8:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li N, Bai B, Wang Z, Luo F, Lu XZ, Lu CH (2015b) Avian seed dispersal and seedling distribution of the endangered tree species, Taxus chinensis, in patchy habitats. Plant Ecol Diver 8:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li N, Li XH, An SQ, Lu CH (2016) Impact of multiple bird partners on the seed dispersal effectiveness of China’s relic trees. Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep17489 Google Scholar
  20. Lu CH, Zhu QQ, Deng QS (2008) Effect of frugivorous birds on the establishment of a naturally regenerating population of Chinese yew in ex situ conservation. Integ Zool 3:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markl J, Schleuning M, Forget PM, Jordano P, Lambert J, Traveset A, Wright J, Böhning–Gaese K (2012) Meta–analysis of the effects of human disturbance on seed dispersal by animals. Conserv Biol 26:1072–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pan Y, Bai B, Xiong T, Shi PJ, Lu CH (2016) Seed handling by primary frugivores differentially influence post-dispersal seed removal of Chinese yew by ground-dwelling animals. Integ Zool 11:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pérez-Hernández CG, Vergara PM, Saura S, Hernández J (2014) Do corridors promote connectivity for bird-dispersed trees? The case of persea lingue, in chilean fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 30:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pérez-Méndez N, Jordano P, Valido A (2015) Downsized mutualisms: consequences of seed dispersers’ body-size reduction for early plant recruitment. Perspect Plant Ecol 17:151–159Google Scholar
  25. Pogson B (2015) Habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity. Science 347:1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Puerta-Piñero C, Pino J, Gómez JM (2012) Direct and indirect landscape effects on Quercus ilex, regeneration in heterogeneous environments. Oecologia 170:1009–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Razafindratsima OH, Dunham AE (2015) Assessing the impacts of nonrandom seed dispersal by multiple frugivore partners on plant recruitment. Ecology 96:24–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodríguez-Pérez J, Wiegand T, Santamaria L (2012) Frugivore behavior determines plant distribution: a spatially-explicit analysis of a plant-disperser interaction. Ecography 35:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rother DC, Pizo MA, Jordano P (2016) Variation in seed dispersal effectiveness: the redundancy of consequences in diversified neotropical frugivore assemblages. Oikos 125:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schupp EW (1993) Quantity, quality and the effectiveness of seed dispersal by animals. Vegetatio 107/108:15–29Google Scholar
  31. Schupp EW (1995) Seed-seedling conflicts, habitat choice, and patterns of plant recruitment. Am J Bot 82:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schupp EW, Jordano P, Gómez JM (2010) Seed dispersal effectiveness revisited: a conceptual review. New Phytol 188:333–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Spiegel O, Nathan R (2007) Incorporating dispersal distance into the disperser effectiveness framework: frugivorous birds provide complementary dispersal to plants in a patchy environment. Ecol Lett 10:718–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Bascompte J, Wardle DA (2008) Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:1351–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang ZL, Zhao MS, Lou LH, Tian XF (2003) Study on composition and properties of Taxus chinensis var. mairei community in Lin’an. J Zhejiang Sci Technol 23:1–15Google Scholar
  36. Wiederholt R, Trainor AM, Michel N, Shirey PD, Swaisgood RR, Tallamy D, Cook-Patton SC (2015) The face of conservation responding to a dynamically changing world. Integer Zool 10:436–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ning Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bing Bai
    • 1
    • 4
  • Xin-hai Li
    • 5
  • Shu-qing An
    • 2
  • Chang-hu Lu
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant-Animal Interactions, College of Forest Resources and EnvironmentNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of Life ScienceNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Institute of Eastern-Himalaya Biodiversity ResearchDali UniversityDaliChina
  4. 4.Yunnan Forestry Technological CollegeKunmingChina
  5. 5.Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations