Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Seed-caching responses to substrate and rock cover by two Peromyscus species: implications for pinyon pine establishment

  • Plant Animal Interactions
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined whether pinyon mice (Peromyscus truei) and brush mice (P. boylii) could act as directed dispersal agents of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) through differential responses to soil particle size and rock cover. In field experiments, we allowed mice to either cache pinyon seeds or recover artificially cached seeds (pilfer) from quadrats containing large- or small-particle soils. Both species placed most (70%) seed caches in small-particle soil. Pilfering was the same from both particle sizes in the first year, while more seeds were pilfered from large-particle soils in the second year. In separate experiments, rock cover interacted with soil particle size, with both species placing over 50% of their caches in small-particle soil with rock cover. Overall, we found greater seed-caching in small-particle soils near rocks, with equal or lower pilfering from small-particle soils, suggesting more seeds would survive in small-particle soils near rock cover. Three lines of evidence supported the hypothesis that mice could act as directed dispersers by moving pinyon seeds to beneficial microsites for germination and establishment. First, in greenhouse experiments, pinyon seed germination was 4 times greater in small-particle soil cores than in large-particle soil cores. Second, soils near rocks had significantly higher water content than areas of open soil at the driest time of the year, a critical factor for seedling survival in the arid southwestern USA. Third, 75% of juvenile pinyon trees were growing in small-particle soils, and 45% were growing near rock nurses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramsky Z, Strauss E, Subach A, Kotler BP, Riechman A (1996) The effect of barn owls (Tyto alba) on the activity and microhabitat selection of Gerbillus allenbyi and G. pyramidium. Oecologia 105:313–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertness MD, Calloway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady NC, Weil RR (2000) Elements of the nature and properties of soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76:408–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Calloway RM, DeLucia EH, Moore D, Nowak R, Schlesinger WH (1996) Competition and facilitation: contrasting effects of Artemisia tridentata on desert vs. montane pines. Ecology 77:2130–2141

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers JC (2000) Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol Appl 10:1400–1413

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers JC (2001) Pinus monophylla establishment in an expanding Pinus–Juniperus woodland: environmental conditions, facilitation and interacting factors. J Veg Sci 12:27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb NS, Mopper S, Gehring CA, Caouette M, Christensen KM, Whitham TG (1997) Increased moth herbivory associated with environmental stress of pinyon pine at local and regional levels. Oecologia 109:389–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drivas E, Everett R (1988) Water relation characteristics of competing singleleaf pinyon seedlings and sagebrush nurse plants. For Ecol Manage 23:27–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett RL, Koniak S, Budy JD (1986) Pinyon seedling distribution among soil surface microhabitats. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden

  • Giannoni SM, Dacar M, Taraborelli P, Borghi CE (2001) Seed hoarding by rodents of the Monte Desert, Argentina. Aust Ecol 26:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanzawa FM, Beattie AJ, Culver DC (1988) Directed dispersal: demographic analysis of an ant-seed mutualism. Am Nat 131:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London

  • Hoffmeister DF (1986) Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz.

  • Holbrook SJ (1978) Habitat relationships and coexistence of four sympatric species of Peromyscus in Northwestern New Mexico. J Mammal 59:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoshizaki K, Suzuki W, Nakashizuka T (1999) Evaluation of secondary dispersal in a large-seeded tree Aesculus turbinata: a test of directed dispersal. Plant Ecol 144:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard WE, Cole RE (1967) Olfaction in seed detection by deer mice. J Mammal 48:147–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard WE, Marsh RE, Cole RE (1968) Food detection by deer mice using olfactory rather than visual cues. Anim Behav 16:13–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howe FH, Smallwood J (1982) Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13: 210–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JJ, Ward D, Perrin MR (1995) Effects of substrate on foraging decisions by a Namib Desert Gerbil. J Mammal 76:638–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (1994) Post-dispersal seed predation in grassland: its magnitude and sources of variation. J Ecol 82:645–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Iida S (1996) Quantitative analysis of acorn transportation by rodents using magnetic locator. Vegetatio 124:39–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson TK, Jorgensen CD (1981) Ability of desert rodents to find buried seeds. J Range Manage 34:312–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP (1984) Effects of illumination on the rate of resource harvesting in a community of desert rodents. Am Midl Nat 111:383–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Oldfield A, Thorson J, Cohen D (2001) Foraging substrate and escape substrate: patch use by three species of gerbils. Ecology 86:1781–1790

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutch JW (1974) The paradox of a lava flow. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Globe

  • Lanner RM (1996) Made for each other: a symbiosis of birds and pines. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaver LA, Daly M (2001) Food caching and differential cache pilferage: a field study of coexistence of sympatric kangaroo rats and pocket mice. Oecologia 128:577–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston BR (1972) Influence of birds, stones and soil on the establishment of pasture juniper, Juniperus communis, and red cedar, J. virginiana in New England pastures. Ecology 53:1141–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Longland WS, Price MV (1991) Direct observations of owls and heteromyid rodents: can predation risk explain microhabitat use? Ecology 72:2261–2273

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald DW (1976) Food caching by red foxes and other carnivores. Z Tierpsychol 42:170–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McQuade DB, Williams EH, Eichenbaum HB (1986) Cues used for localizing food by the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Ethology 72:22–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Meagher GS (1943) Reaction of pinyon and juniper seedlings to artificial shade and supplemental watering. J For 41:480–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan KR, Price MV (1992) Foraging in heteromyid rodents: the energy cost of scratch-digging. Ecology 73:2260–2272

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dowd DJ, Hay ME (1980) Mutualism between harvester ants and a desert ephemeral: seed escape from rodents. Ecology 61:531–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos L, Oliveira PS (2002) Ants affect the distribution and performance of seedlings of Clusia criuva, a primarily bird-dispersed rain forest tree. J Ecol 90:517–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston SD, Jacobs LF (2001) Conspecific pilferage but not presence affects Merriam’s kangaroo rat cache strategy. Behav Ecol 12:517–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price MV Podolsky RH (1989) Mechanisms of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents: soil texture effects on harvest rate and seed size selection. Oecologia 81:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Price MV, Heinz KM (1984) Effects of body size, seed density, and soil characteristics on rates of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 61:420–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Price MV, Reichman OJ (1987) Distribution of seeds in Sonoran Desert soils: Implications for heteromyid rodent foraging. Ecology 68:1797–1811

    Google Scholar 

  • Price MV, Waser NM, McDonald S (2000) Seed caching by heteromyid rodents from two communities: implications for coexistence. J Mammal 81:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman OJ (1984) Spatial and temporal variation of seed distribution types by Dipodomys merriami and Perognathus amplus. J Biogeogr 58:636–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid N (1989) Dispersal of mistletoes by honeyeaters and flowerpeckers: components of seed dispersal quality. Ecology 70:137–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice BL, Westoby M (1986) Evidence against the hypothesis that ant-dispersed seeds reach nutrient-enriched microsites. Ecology 67:1270–1274

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargent S (1995) Seed fate in a tropical mistletoe: the importance of host twig size. Funct Ecol 9:197–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Schupp EW (1995) Seed-seedling conflicts, habitat choice, and patterns of plant recruitment. Am J Bot 82:399–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapanian MA, Smith CC (1984) A model for seed scatterhoarding: coevolution of fox squirrels and black walnuts. Ecology 59:884–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury JJ, Nabhan GP, Norman D, Suzan H, Tuxill J, Donavon J (1999) In situ conservation of wild chilies and their biotic associates. Conserv Biol 13:98–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (1993) Cache site selection by chipmunks (Tamias spp.) and its influence on the effectiveness of seed dispersal in Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Oecologia 96:246–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (1995) Influence of substrate water on the ability of rodents to find buried seeds. J Mammal 76:851–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (1997) Dispersal of singleleaf pinon pine (Pinus monophylla) by seed-caching rodents. J Mammal 78:181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (1998a) Foraging success of granivorous rodents: effects of variation in seed and soil water on olfaction. Ecology 79:233–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (1998b) Recaching of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds by yellow pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus): potential effects on plant reproductive success. Can J Zool 76:154–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (2000) The influence of environmental conditions on cache recovery and cache pilferage by yellow pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behav Ecol 11:544–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB (2002) Secondary dispersal of Jeffrey pine seeds by rodent scatter-hoarders: the roles of pilfering, recaching and a variable environment. In: Levey DJ, Silva WR, Galetti M (eds) Seed dispersal and frugivory: ecology, evolution and conservation. CABI International, London

  • Vander Wall SB (2003) How rodents smell buried seeds: a model based on the behavior of pesticides in soil. J Mammal 84:1089–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB, Balda RP (1981) Ecology and evolution of food-storage behavior in conifer-seed-caching corvids. Zool Tierpsychol 56:217–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wall SB, Joyner JW (1998) Recaching of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds by yellow pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus): potential effects on plant reproductive success. Can J Zool 76:154–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vleck D (1979) The energy cost of burrowing by the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae. Physiol Zool 52:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenny DG (2001) Advantages of seed dispersal: a re-evaluation of directed dispersal. Evol Ecol Res 3:51–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenny DG, Levey DJ (1998) Directed seed dispersal by bellbirds in a tropical cloud forest. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:6204–6207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Gehring and B. Hungate and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft and L. Compton, K. Covert, T. Pearson and J. Pearson for field assistance. This work was supported in part by a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research to K. M. P. and an NAU Organized Research Grant to T. C. T.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA

    Kristen M. Pearson & Tad C. Theimer

Authors
  1. Kristen M. Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tad C. Theimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen M. Pearson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pearson, K.M., Theimer, T.C. Seed-caching responses to substrate and rock cover by two Peromyscus species: implications for pinyon pine establishment. Oecologia 141, 76–83 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1638-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1638-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation