Plant Ecology

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 75–82 | Cite as

Interactions between aroids and arboreal mammals in the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest

  • Emerson M. Vieira
  • Patrícia Izar


The Brazilian Atlantic rainforest harbours at least 129 non-volant mammal species. There is also a diverse and numerous epiphytic flora associated with this Neotropical rainforest, including several species of Araceae. Nevertheless, knowledge of the ecology of this group of plants and its interaction with animals is poor. In this study we investigated the interactions between epiphytic aroids and arboreal mammals in the Atlantic forest. We carried out the field work between November 1995 and June 1997 in the Parque Estadual Intervales, southeastern Brazil, a still well preserved forest area of approximately 490 km2. We analysed faecal samples from primates (Cebus apella and Brachyteles arachnoides), collected during observations in the field, and marsupials (Didelphis aurita, Micoureus demerarae, Gracilinanus microtarsus), collected from animals captured monthly or bi-monthly in live-traps. We recorded 17 species of Araceae in the study area. The seeds of eight species occurred in the faecal samples: Anthurium harrissi, Monstera adansonii, Philodendron corcovadense, P. appendiculatum, P. exymium, P. crassinervium, P. obliquifolium, and Heteropsis oblongifolia. Aroids were present in faecal samples of the primates during most of the year, with a mean monthly percentage of occurrence of about 56.2%. For marsupials, aroids also were a seasonally important food source, as between November and June the mean monthly percentage of occurrence in faecal samples was about 26.5%. Our data indicate that aroids are an important food source for arboreal and semi-arboreal mammals and that these animals may play an important role as seed dispersers of this group. Aroids and arboreal mammals appear to interact more strongly in Atlantic forest than in other Neotropical forests.

Araceae Brazil Frugivory Marsupials Primates Seed dispersal 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almeida-Scabbia, R. 1996. Fitossociologia de um trecho de floresta atlântica na região sudeste do Brasil. Master thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  2. Atramentowicz, M. 1988. La frugivorie opportuniste de trois marsupiaux didelphidés de Guyane. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 43: 47–57.Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho JÚnior, O. 1996. Dieta, padrões de atividades e de agrupamento do mono-carvoeiro (Brachyteles arachnoides) no Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho-SP. Master thesis, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil.Google Scholar
  4. Cerqueira, R., Fernandez, F. A. S. & Quintela, M. F. S. 1990. Mamíferos da restinga de barra de Maricá, Rio de Janeiro. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 37: 141–157.Google Scholar
  5. Charles-Dominique, P. 1993. Speciation and coevolution: an interpretation of frugivory phenomena. Vegetatio 107/108: 75–84.Google Scholar
  6. Charles-Dominique, P., Atramentowicz, M., Charles-Dominique, M., Gérard, H., Hladik, A., Hladik, C. M. & Prévost, M. F. 1981. Les mammiferes frugivores arboricoles nocturnes d'une foret guyanaise: inter-relations plantes-animaux. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 35: 341–436.Google Scholar
  7. Dib, L. R. T., Oliva, A. L. & Strier, K. B. 1997. Terrestrial travel in muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides) across a forest clearing at the Estação Biológica de Caratinga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neot. Primates 5: 8–9.Google Scholar
  8. Dislich, R. 1996. Florística e estrutura do componente epifítico vascular na mata da reserva da cidade universitária ‘Armando de Salles Oliveira’, São Paulo, SP. Master thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  9. Fleming, T. H., and V. J. Sosa. 1994. Effects of nectarivorous and frugivorous mammals on reproductive success of plants. J. Mammal. 75: 845–851.Google Scholar
  10. Fonseca, G. A. B. 1985. The vanishing Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol. Cons. 34: 17–34.Google Scholar
  11. Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kierulff, M. C. M. 1989. Biology and natural history of Brazilian Atlantic forest small mammals. Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci. 34: 99–152.Google Scholar
  12. Freese, C & Oppenheimer, J. R.. 1981. The Capuchin Monkeys, Genus Cebus. Pp. 331–390. In: Coimbra-Filho & Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), Ecology and Behavior of Neotropical Primates. Vol. 1. Academia Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  13. Galetti, M. 1996a. Comportamentos antipredatórios de quatro espécies de primatas no sudeste do Brasil. Rev. Bras. Biol. 56: 203–209.Google Scholar
  14. Galetti, M. 1996b. Fruits and frugivory in a Brazilian Atlantic forest. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Gentry, A. H. 1990. Four Neotropical Rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  16. Gentry, A. H. & Dodson, C. H. 1987. Diversity and biogeography of neotropical vascular epiphytes. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 74: 205–233.Google Scholar
  17. Gorchov, D. L., Cornejo, F., Ascorra, C. F. & Jaramillo, M. 1995. Dietary overlap between frugivorous birds and bats in the Peruvian Amazon. Oikos 74: 235–250.Google Scholar
  18. Herrera, C. M. 1985. Determinants of plant-animal coevolution: the case of mutualistic dispersal of seeds by vertebrates. Oikos 44: 132–141.Google Scholar
  19. Howe, H. F. 1980. Monkey dispersal and waste of a Neotropical fruit. Ecology 61: 944–959.Google Scholar
  20. Howe, H. F. 1984. Constraints on the evolution of mutualisms. Amer. Nat. 123: 764–777.Google Scholar
  21. Howe, H. F. 1993. Specialized and generalized dispersal systems: where does ‘the paradigm’ stand? Vegetatio 107/108: 3–13.Google Scholar
  22. Howe, H. F. & Estabrook, G. F. 1977. On instraspefic competition for dispersal agents in tropical trees. Amer. Nat. 111: 817–832.Google Scholar
  23. Janson, C. H., Stiles, E. W. & White, D. W. 1986. Selection on plant fruiting traits by brown capuchin monkeys: a multivariate approach. Pp. 83–92. In: Estrada, A. & Fleming, T. H. (eds), Frugivores and seed dispersal.. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Joly, C. A., Leitão-Filho, H. F. & Silva, S. M. 1990. The Floristic Heritage. Pp. 97–108. In: Câmara, I. G. (ed.), Atlantic Rain Forest. Ed. Index and Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  25. Julliot, C. 1997. Impact of seed dispersal by red howler monkeys Alouatta seniculus on the seedling population in the understory of tropical rain forest. J. Ecol. 85: 431–440.Google Scholar
  26. Kelly, D. L. 1985. Epiphytes and climbers of a Jamaican rain forest: vertical distribution, life forms and life histories. J. Biogeogr. 12: 223–241.Google Scholar
  27. Mckey, D. 1975. The ecology of coevolved seed dispersal systems. Pp. 159–191. In: Gilbert, L. E. & Raven, P. (eds), Coevolution of animal and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Medellín, R. A. 1994. Seed dispersal of Cecropia obtusifolia by two species of opossums in the selva Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 26: 400–407.Google Scholar
  29. Nadkarni, N. M. & Matelson, T. J. 1989. Bird use of epiphyte resources in Neotropical trees. Condor 91: 891–907.Google Scholar
  30. Neville, M. K., Glander, K. E., Braza, F. & Rylands, A. B. 1988. The howling monkeys, genus Allouata. Pp. 349–453. In: Mittermeier, R. A., Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho, A. & Fonseca, G. A. B. (eds), Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates. Vol. 2. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. Olmos, F. 1996. Satiation or deception? Mast-seeding Chusquea bamboos, birds and rats in the Atlantic forest. Rev. Bras. Biol. 56: 391–401.Google Scholar
  32. Peres, C. A. 1994. Primate responses to phenological changes in an Amazonian terra firme forest. Biotropica 26: 98–112.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, J. G. & Redford, K. H. 1986. Body size, diet, and populations density of neotropical forest mammals. Amer. Nat. 128: 665–680.Google Scholar
  34. Santori, R. T., AstÚa de Moraes, D. & Cerqueira, R. 1996. Diet composition of Metachirus nudicaudatus and Didelphis aurita (Marsupialia, Didelphidae) in Southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 60: 307–311.Google Scholar
  35. Strier, K. B. 1991. Diet in one group of wooly spider monkeys, or muriquis (Brachyteles arachnoides). Am. J. Primat. 23: 13–126.Google Scholar
  36. ter Steege, H. & Cornelissen, J. H. C. 1989. Distribution and ecology of vascular epiphytes in lowland rain forest of Guyana. Biotropica 21: 331–339.Google Scholar
  37. Terborgh, J. 1983. Five new world primates: a study in comparative ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  38. van Roosmalen, M. G. M. & Klein, L. L. 1988. The spider monkeys, genus Ateles. Pp. 455–575. In: Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B., Coimbra-Filho, A. & Fonseca, G. A. B. (eds), Ecology and behavior of neotropical primates. Vol. 2. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Vieira, E. M. 1998. A technique for trapping small mammals in the forest canopy. Mammalia 62: 306–310.Google Scholar
  40. Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emerson M. Vieira
    • 1
  • Patrícia Izar
    • 2
  1. 1.Pós-Graduação EcologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinas, SPBrazil
  2. 2.Dept. de Psicologia ExperimentalUniversidade de São PauloSão Paulo, SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations