Seed traits affect seed dispersal by animals. However, the combined role of seeds and dispersers in determining seed dispersal is not well explored. We attempted to test how seed traits and predators determine seed dispersal and predation interaction in a rodent-mediated seed dispersal system. Semi-natural enclosure experiments were conducted to investigate seed dispersal and predation of five sympatric tree species with different seed traits, Juglans mandshurica, Quercus mongolica, Pinus koraiensis, Corylus mandshurica and C. heterophylla by three rodent species, Apodemus peninsulae, Tamias sibiricus and Clethrionomys rufocanus showing different body sizes, hoarding behaviors and activity rhythms. Our results demonstrated that seed species with thick coat were removed more slowly than thin-coated seeds in regardless of rodent species, reflecting a consistent negative effect of seed coat on seed dispersal. Seeds with thick coat were less likely to be eaten both in situ and after removal by small rodents. Seeds with high caloric value were more likely to be larder-hoarded, whereas seed traits showed no influence on scatter-hoarding. Rodent species with large body size tended to eat more seeds in situ, while small-sized rodents preferred to eat seeds after removal. Large-sized rodent species scatter-hoarded more seeds, however, small-sized rodents larder-hoarded more seeds. Seeds with thick coat showed high mutualism but low predation with rodents, while rodents with large size showed low mutualism but high predation with seeds. Our results indicate that both seeds and predators play important roles in determining seed dispersal and predation in the seed-rodent dispersal system.
Body SizeCaloric ValueSeed CoatSeed DispersalForest and Animal Stock ManagementIntroduction
Many plant species producing large-sized seeds rely substantially on animals for their seed dispersal (Herrera 2002, Jansen et al. 2002, Roth & Vander Wall 2005, Steele et al. 2006, Muñoz & Bonal 2007). In the dispersal systems, animals depend on plant seeds as nutrition supplies for their survival, especially in food shortage periods, and future reproductive success (Vander Wall 1990, O’Farrill et al. 2013). Seed predators may also act as effective seed dispersers, provided that seeds are cached and not completely retrieved (Yi & Yang 2011, Lai et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2014). Two kinds of seed hoarders can be distinguished according to their caching strategies: larder hoarders usually store food items in central caches; while scatter hoarders store food in spaced caches and invest little to defense stores and reduce pilferage (Vander Wall 1990, Jenkins et al. 1995).
Seed dispersal can be affected by various properties of seeds (e.g., Moore & Swihart 2006, Steele et al. 2006, Li & Zhang 2007, Zhang & Zhang 2008). Seed traits have been recognized as important factors affecting rodents’ final decision to manipulate food sources (Kelrick & MacMzhon 1985, Zhang & Zhang 2008, Lai et al. 2014). Seed size (Moles et al. 2003, Xiao et al. 2005a, Xiao et al. 2013, Barcelos et al. 2013, Capece et al. 2013), handling time (Kaufman & Collier 1981), moisture content (Hulbert & Macmillen 1988), energy and soluble carbohydrates (Kelrick & MacMzhon 1985, Kerley & Erasmus 1991, Xiao et al. 2005b), nutrients (Alexander et al. 2001, Jansen & Forget 2001, Xiao et al. 2006), secondary chemical compounds (e.g., tannins and other polyphenols - Steele et al. 1993), seed coat thickness (Zhang & Zhang 2008, Takechi et al. 2009) as well as seed germination schedule (Xiao et al. 2013) have been identified to show influences on seed removal and dispersal. Apart from the influence of seed traits, environmental factors such as habitat qualities and seasonal variations show great impacts on seed removal and dispersal (Hulme 1997, Kollmann et al. 1998, Wang et al. 2000, Meng et al. 2012).
Sympatric rodent species often differ greatly for instance in body size, tooth morphology, and nutrition requirement, and they may differ in affecting seed fates in the field (e.g., Kerley & Erasmus 1991, Muñoz & Bonal 2008a). Large-sized rodent species may have strong abilities of opening hard seeds, defending food caches or predation, which may affect their seed hoarding strategies. It suggests that larder-hoarding is often adopted by dominant or stronger animals because they can defend their larders (Dally et al. 2006), while scatter-hoarding is generally considered as a strategy of subordinate animals to minimize the risk of catastrophic loss of hoarded food (MacDonald 1997, Preston & Jacobs 2001). Therefore, body size of small rodents may be another important factor in affecting hoarding strategies (e.g., scatter- vs. larder-hoarding). Previous field studies usually evaluated the interaction between seeds and rodents at community levels, as it is impossible to evaluate the role of a single rodent species in seed dispersal of various tree species. Therefore, it is hard to discriminate specific behavioral response of one given rodent species to certain seed traits when selecting seeds (Muñoz & Bonal 2008b, Zhang & Zhang 2008). Although seed trait plays an important role in determining the formation of mutualism and predation interactions among multiple tree and animal species (Zhang & Zhang 2008, Lai et al. 2014, Wang et al. 2014), the effects of both seed and rodent traits on seed dispersal and predation have been not well evaluated (Chang & Zhang 2014).
The purpose of this study is to investigate how three sympatric rodent species with different body sizes affect seed dispersal and seed fates of five sympatric tree species in semi-natural enclosures in northeastern China. We predicted that: (1) thick-coated seeds will be removed more slowly than seeds with thin coat because thick coat usually increase the time for rodents to eat seeds (Zhang & Zhang 2008); (2) thick-coated seeds will be less likely eaten in situ but more likely eaten after removal according to the handling-time hypothesis; (3) more seeds with high caloric value will be hoarded by rodents according to the optimal forage theory (Pyke 1984); (4) large-sized rodent species will eat more seeds in situ, while rodents with small size tend to eat seeds after removal; (5) large-sized rodents will larder-hoard more seeds than small-sized ones, while rodents with small size will scatter-hoard more seeds than large-sized rodents due to their lower ability to defend larders (MacDonald 1976, Preston & Jacobs 2001).
Materials and methodsStudy site
This study was conducted in the Dongfanghong Forestry Center (average elevation 750 m, located at 46° 50′ to 46° 59′ N, 128° 57′ to 129° 17′ E) in the Dailing district, Yichun city, Heilongjiang Province, north-eastern China. The climate of the experimental site is dominated by the north temperate zonal monsoon with severe and long winters and short summers. The annual average temperature is 1.4 °C with maximum at 37 °C and minimum at -40 °C. Average annual precipitation averages at 660 mm, with 80% of annual precipitation falls between May and September (Yi & Zhang 2008).
Experimental enclosures
Sixteen separate semi-natural enclosures (10 × 10 × 2.5 m) were constructed in an open area at the edge of the forests. The enclosures were built using bricks about 2.5 m above and 0.5 m below the ground. The walls of the enclosures were smoothed to prevent escape of small rodents. Grasses commonly found in the forests were distributed with an average coverage of 60%, while trees and shrubs were removed to prevent rodents from escaping by climbing. To prevent avian predators from entering the enclosures, the enclosures were covered with plastic nets on the top. An artificial nest constructed of bricks (H × W × L = 20 × 15 × 30 cm) and a plastic water bowl were placed at one corner of the enclosure to allow animals to rest and drink freely. A seed station of 0.5 m2 was established at the center of each enclosure.
Tested rodent species
The dominant rodent species in the study site are Apodemus peninsulae (Rodentia, Muridae), Clethtionomys rufocanus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) and Tamias sibiricus (Rodentia, Sciuridae). They were chosen for the present experiments because their significant role in the dispersal of large seeds of local tree species (Yi & Zhang 2008). A. peninsulae and C. rufocanus are small nocturnal species, while T. sibiricus is a larger diurnal rodent. T. sibiricus mainly scatter-hoards but occasionally larder-hoards seeds of local tree species, while A. peninsulae behaves differently, mainly larder-hoarding but sometimes scatter-hoarding seeds. Another nocturnal species, C. rufocanus, is pure seed predator and only larder-hoards seeds of local tree species.
During seed fall in early September 2010, steel frame live traps with a size of 9 × 10 × 25 cm (H × W × L), baited with peanuts and some carrots, were placed in the forests with a 5 m interval along four transects at 9:00 a.m. for animal trapping. We checked the traps every three hours to ensure safety of the captured rodents. All traps were removed at 6:00 p.m. and re-placed next day. Trapping stopped in bad-weather days, such as heavy rain. The target animals captured in each visit were transported by car to the laboratory housing room within no more than 30 minutes. In the laboratory, the animals were individually kept in steel frame cages (H × W × L: 40 × 50 × 90 cm) at outdoors conditions (15-25 °C, 14h of daylight). They were provided with carrots, peanuts, tree seeds and water ad libitum. No animal died during trapping and laboratory rearing. The Dailing Forestry Bureau of the Heilongjiang Province issued permits for the experimental animal trapping. Our behavioral trials and housing procedures were approved by the College of Agriculture, Henan University of Science and Technology. Four days after the experiments, all animals were released where they were captured.
Experimental seeds
The seeds of the five sympatric plant species Juglans mandshurica, Quercus mongolica, Pinus koraiensis, Corylus mandshurica and C. heterophylla were tested (Tab. 1). In the study region, C. mandshurica and C. heterophylla are dominant shrub species, while P. koraiensis, Q. mongolica and J. mandshurica are dominant tree species. Seeds of these five tree species were reported to be dispersed and predated by T. sibiricus, A. peninsulae, and C. rufocanus (Shen et al. 2012). Seeds of J. mandshurica are rich in fat and have the largest size and the thickest coat. C. heterophylla produces seeds of medium size and thick coat, while Q. mongolica produces medium-sized acorns with thinnest seed coat, low nutrition level and high level of tannins. C. mandshurica and P. koraiensis have the smallest seeds with thin coat and high nutrition level. During seed fall, seeds of the five species were collected from the ground under 10-15 trees. Thirty seeds of each tree species were randomly selected for the measurement of physical traits (seed mass, seed length, seed width and coat thickness by using electric vernier caliper and precision scale). Ninety seeds of each tree species were dried at 60 °C for 48 hours. The whole kernel of each seed was carefully collected and weighed. Then, thirty kernels of each species were mixed up into a sample for nutrition analyses, therefore a total of three samples were collected. Concentrations of crude protein, crude fat, crude starch and tannin of the seeds were measured by the Cereal Quality Supervision and Testing Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, China (No. 12 Southern Zhongguancun Road, Haidian District, Beijing). The caloric values of seeds were calculated by the average gross energy equivalents of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Yang & Xiao (2002) have calculated the corresponding values for the three organic matters, i.e., 17.2 kJ/g, 38.9 KJ/g, and 17.2 kJ/g, respectively. Caloric value per seed was calculated using mean kernel mass × caloric value of seeds (Zhang & Zhang 2008). The caloric values per seed and per gram kernel were used to reflect the nutritional values of tree species. Seeds were then labeled with plastic tags according to Yi et al. (2011) with minor modifications. A hole (0.3 mm in diameter) was drilled through the seed coat of each seed, without damaging the cotyledon and the embryo. A flexible plastic tag (2.5 × 3.5 cm, < 0.3 g) was tied through the hole in each seed using a thin 10 cm-long steel thread.
Assessment of seed selection and dispersal by rodents
Trapped animals were starved for 12 hours before being moved in the enclosures. At 7:00 a.m. one animal was singly introduced in each enclosure to test seed removal, seed predation and hoarding. Nine adult individuals of A. peninsulae (5 females, 4 males, body mass: 26.83 ± 5.64 g, mean ± SD), 7 C. rufocanus (3 females, 4 males, body mass 33.38 ± 3.57 g) and 7 T. sibiricus (3 females, 4 males, body mass: 104.80 ± 9.25 g) were randomly selected for the seed removal experiments. Ten intact tagged seeds of each tree species were supplied to each individual only once. The tagged seeds in the enclosures were checked in the morning (7:00 a.m.) and afternoon (16:00 p.m.) daily in the following 3 days (81 hours). The seed removal rate by small rodents was reflected by the proportions of intact seed remaining at the seed stations. Scatter-hoarded seeds were located easily because the attached tags are usually left on the ground after being buried by rodents.
Data analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0) was used for data analyses. Cox regression was used to identify difference in seed removal rates of the five seed species at seed stations. Two-way ANOVA was used to test the effects of plant and rodent species on the number of seeds remained at seed stations (IIS), eaten in situ (EIS), intact after removal (IAR), eaten after removal (EAR), scatter-hoarded (SH) and larder-hoarded (LH), respectively.
ResultsSeed removal rate according to plant species
Seed removal rate by A. peninsulae was marginally different among the five tested plant species (Wald = 9.34, df = 4, P = 0.053), following the order: P. koraiensis > Q. mongolica > C. mandshurica > C. heterophylla > J. mandshurica (Fig. 1A, Fig. 2A). As in A. peninsulae, also T. sibiricus showed significant differences in seed removal rates among the plant species (Wald = 19.01, df = 4, P = 0.001 - Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B). Finally, significant differences between plant species in seed removal rates were found in C. rufocanus (Wald = 20.73, df = 4, P < 0.001 - Fig. 1C), but with a different preference order: Q. mongolica > P. koraiensis > C. mandshurica > C. heterophylla > J. mandshurica.
Seed fates according to plant species
More seeds of P. koraiensis and Q. mongolica were removed from seed stations than those of C. mandshurica, C. heterophylla and J. mandshurica (F = 99.639, df = 4, P < 0.001- Fig. 2, Tab. 2, Tab. 3). EIS and EAR seeds were significantly affected by seed species (EIS: F = 40.224, df = 4, P < 0.001; EAR: F = 22.124, df = 4, P < 0.001), with seeds of Q. mongolica, with the thinnest coat, showing the highest EIS and EAR rates (Tab. 2). Seeds of P. koraiensis were instead more likely to be scatter-hoarded than the other four seed species (F = 8.18, df = 4, P < 0.001). Larder-hoarding was also affected by seed species, i.e., small rodents larder-hoarded more seeds of P. koraiensis and J. mandshurica than those of Q. mongolica, C. mandshurica and C. heterophylla (Fig. 2, Tab. 2, Tab. 3), indicating that seeds with high caloric value were more likely to be hoarded by rodents.
Seed fates according to rodent species
The three rodent species showed significantly different manipulations of seeds in term of total number of seeds remaining at seed stations (F = 166.92, df = 2, P < 0.001); more seeds were left by C. rufocanus than by A. peninsulae and T. sibiricus, respectively (all P < 0.001 - Fig. 2, Tab. 2, Tab. 3). T. sibiricus, with large body size, ate more seeds at seed stations than small-sized A. peninsulae and medium-sized C. rufocanus (F = 487.36, df = 2, P < 0.001). However, more seeds were eaten after removal (EAR) by A. peninsulae than by C. rufocanus and T. sibiricus (F = 104.64, df = 2, P < 0.001). T. sibiricus and A. peninsulae scatter-hoarded more seeds than C. rufocanus (F = 6.53, df = 2, P < 0.001). Finally, more seeds were larder-hoarded by A. peninsulae and C. rufocanus than by T. sibiricus (F = 46.03, df = 2, P < 0.001 - Fig. 2, Tab. 2, Tab. 3).
Correlation between seed traits and seed fates
Regression of the proportion of IIS vs. seed coat thickness indicated that seed species with thick coat were more likely to be left at seed stations (r = 0.909, P < 0.05 - Tab. 4). No significant relationship was found between the proportion of EIS and seed coat thickness (r = -0.827, P = 0.084); however, the proportion of EIS was negatively correlated with the caloric value of seeds (r = -0.942, P < 0.05). We also found that the proportion of EAR was negatively correlated with both coat thickness and caloric value of seeds (r = -0.905, P < 0.05; r = -0.892, P < 0.05, respectively). Seed caloric value was positively and marginally correlated with the proportion of larder-hoarded seeds (r = 0.876, P = 0.051), but not with scatter-hoarded seeds (r = 0.499, P > 0.05).
Discussion
High level of defense (e.g., thick seed coat) to predators usually reduces seed removal rates from seed stations by seed dispersers (Zhang & Zhang 2008). Our results support the first prediction suggesting that thick-coated seeds are removed more slowly than thin-coated seeds by small rodents because they may require greater efforts to handle. Rodents have to spend more time to eat seeds with thick coat, which may increase predation risk (Howe 1979); selecting thin-coated seeds may reflect their feeding strategies. Previous studies suggest that large-sized seeds are more likely to be cached by rodents (Xiao et al. 2004, Xiao et al. 2005a, Xiao et al. 2006, Celis-Diez & Bustamante 2005). In the three investigated rodent species, we fail to detect any apparent relationship between seed mass/size and number of seeds eaten or hoarded. More Q. mongolica acorns, the richest in tannins, were eaten either in situ or after removal than those of the other four plant species, inconsistent with the high tannin hypothesis (Steele et al. 1993). This suggests that tannin contents in seeds are unimportant in determining seed hoarding by rodents in our study region (Zhang et al. 2013). Early germinating Q. mongolica acorns were eaten instantly rather than hoarded, in agreement with the perishability hypothesis (Hadj-Chikh et al. 1996, Steele et al. 2001, Xiao et al. 2013). We propose that in Q. mongolica instant consuming rather than acorn caching is probably related to their higher perishability (Smallwood et al. 2001, Goheen & Swihart 2003, Steele et al. 2006). A seed coat thinner than those of other seed species might be an alternative explanation for instant consumption of Q. mongolica acorns by small rodents. Therefore, the effect of seed mass and tannin on seed fates might be masked by other prominent seed traits, e.g., seed coat (Pons & Pausas 2007). The significant and negative correlations between seed removal rates and seed coat thickness reflect the crucial role of seed coat in determining seed selection and seed dispersal (Zhang & Zhang 2008).
No significant relationship was found between seed coat thickness and the proportion of EIS. Our second prediction that thick-coated seeds are less likely to be eaten in situ but more likely to be eaten after removal is not fully demonstrated in this study. Although feeding thick-coated seeds after moving them away would be a safer way to prevent rodents from predation risk (Howe 1979), our results show a significant and negative relationship between the proportion of EAR and seed coat thickness. These results indicate that seeds with extreme thick coat (e.g., J. mandshurica) prevent small rodents to disperse and eat them, generally reflecting the negative effect of thick seed coat on seed dispersal (Zhang & Zhang 2008).
Also the prediction that seeds with high caloric value are more hoarded by rodents is verified in this study. Seeds of P. koraiensis and J. mandshurica with high caloric value were more likely to be larder-hoarded, but less likely to be eaten by small rodents, in agreement with previous observations reporting that small rodents prefer to cache seeds with high nutritional value (Forget et al. 1998, Garb et al. 2000, Brewer 2001, Finkelstein & Grubb 2002). The significant and positive relationship between the proportion of larder-hoarded seeds and the caloric value of seeds also indicates the important role of energy reserves in seeds in determining food hoarding by animals (Jansen et al. 2002). More seeds of P. koraiensis were scatter-hoarded than those of J. mandshurica, although the latter shows higher caloric value per seed, reflecting the trade-offs between nutrition rewards and efforts in handling the thick coat of J. mandshurica seeds.
Animals with different body size may display different seed disposal abilities, and therefore show different preferences for seeds with contrasting traits (Muñoz & Bonal 2008a, Zhang & Zhang 2008). In our study, the large T. sibiricus ate more seeds in situ, while the medium-small A. peninsulae and C. rufocanus ate more seeds after removing them to safe places (e.g., corners and nests), supporting our fourth prediction. Actually, body size cannot always indicate seed handling ability, as T. sibiricus refuse to select seeds of J. mandshurica.
Larder-hoarding animals usually store food in their nests and invest more efforts to defend them, while scatter-hoarders bury one or several seeds in dispersed caches and space them far apart (Jenkins et al. 1995). Although it has been suggested that scatter-hoarding is due to poor ability of animals defending food caches (MacDonald 1976, Preston & Jacobs 2001), A. peninsulae and C. rufocanus, with small body mass, larder-hoarded more seeds than T. sibiricus did, while T. sibiricus scatter-hoarded more seeds than A. peninsulae and C. rufocanus. Contrasting with the last prediction, our results suggest that body size is not linked with the evolution of food hoarding strategies (scatter-hoarding and larder-hoarding). Caching strategies may represent trade-offs between cache defense maximization and cache pilferage minimization (Hurly & Lourie 1997, Gerhardt 2005, Dally et al. 2006).
We acknowledge that many environmental factors may influence seed selection, seed removal and dispersal, and ultimately seed fates in the field (Hay & Fuller 1981, Holl & Lulow 1997, García-Castaño et al. 2006, Meng et al. 2012). Although the same-sized enclosures have been applied to investigate caching behavior of chipmunks and other rodent species (Zhang et al. 2008, Chang et al. 2009, Chang et al. 2010, Huang et al. 2011), the semi-natural enclosures cannot completely mimic the field conditions. Lack of competition and unnatural presentation of seeds are supposed to alter the behavior of rodents in the enclosures. Although previous studies show that the average dispersal distances of seeds of P. koraiensis, C. mandshurica, C. heterophylla, and J. mandshurica are less than 4 m in the field (Yi et al. 2008, Yi & Zhang 2008, Yi & Yang 2010), the enclosures may not be large enough to allow the expression of rodents’ desired seed dispersal range.
Our results shed light on the interaction and coevolution between rodents and plants bearing large seeds. On one hand, plants need to increase seed size and nutrition contents to attract potential dispersers. On the other hand, plants have to avoid predation through developing various physical and chemical defense systems (Steele et al. 1993, Zhang & Zhang 2008). Trade-offs between attractive and defensive traits of plants regulates dispersers’ decision to remove, consume, and hoard seeds. From the animal’s point of view, trade-offs between costs and rewards of manipulating seeds may shape their different abilities of handling, consuming, and hoarding a seed. Thus, the interactions between plant seeds and rodents are often complex and diffuse at community level. The combined effects of seeds and rodents appear to play an important role in determining seed dispersal and predation in the seed-rodent dispersal system.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31470113), the State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents (ChineseIPM1404), and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-12-0693).
ReferencesAlexander HM, Cummings CL, Kahn L, Snow AASeed size variation and predation of seeds produced by wild and crop-wild sunflowers. American Journal of Botany 88: 623-627.2001Barcelos AR, Bobrowiec PED, Sanaiotti TM, Gribel RSeed germination from lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris) fecal samples collected during the dry season in the northern Brazilian Amazon. Integrative Zoology 8: 63-73.2013Brewer SWPredation and dispersal of large and small seeds of a tropical palm. Oikos 92: 245-255.2001Capece PI, Aliaga-Rossel E, Jansen PAViability of small seeds found in feces of the Central American tapir on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Integrative Zoology 8: 57-62.2013Celis-Diez JL, Bustamante ROFrequency-dependent seed size selection on Cryptocarya alba (Mol.) Looser (Lauraceae): testing the effect of background. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 84: 137-142.2005Chang G, Xiao ZS, Zhang ZBHoarding decisions by Edward’s long-tailed rats (Leopoldamys edwardsi) and South China field mice (Apodemus draco): the responses to seed size and germination schedule in acorns. Behavioural Processes 82: 7-11.2009Chang G, Xiao ZS, Zhang ZBEffects of burrow condition and seed handling time on hoarding strategies of Edward’s long-tailed rat (Leopoldamys edwardsi). Behavioural Processes 85: 163-166.2010Chang G, Zhang ZBFunctional traits determine formation of mutualism and predation interactions in seed-rodent dispersal system of a subtropical forest. Acta Oecologica 55: 43-50.2014Dally JM, Clayton NS, Emery NJThe behaviour and evolution of cache protection and pilferage. Animal Behaviour 72: 13-23.2006Finkelstein S, Grubb PJLipid concentration in the embryo-endosperm fraction of seeds of Australian tropical lowland rainforest trees: relevance to defence and dispersal. Seed Science Research 12: 173-180.2002Forget PM, Milleron T, Feer FPatterns in post-dispersal seed removal by neotropical rodents and seed fate in relation to seed size. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 25-49.1998Garb J, Kotler BP, Brown JSForaging and community consequences of seed size for coexisting Negev desert granivores. Oikos 88: 291-300.2000García-Castaño JL, Kollmann J, Jordano PSpatial variation of post-dispersal seed removal by rodents in highland microhabitats of Spain and Switzerland. Seed Science Research 16: 213-222.2006Gerhardt FFood pilfering in larder-hoarding red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Journal of Mammalogy 86: 108-114.2005Goheen JR, Swihart RKFood-hoarding behavior of gray squirrels and North American red squirrels in the central hardwoods region: implications for forest regeneration. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 1636-1639.2003Hadj-Chikh LZ, Steele MA, Smallwood PDCaching decisions by grey squirrels: a test of the handling time and perishability hypotheses. Animal Behaviour 52: 941-948.1996Hay ME, Fuller PJSeed escape from heteromyid rodents: the importance of microhabitat and seed preference. Ecology 62: 1395-1399.1981Herrera CMSeed dispersal by vertebrates. In: “Plant-animal interactions, an evolutionary approach” (Herrera CM, Pellmyr O eds). Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK, pp. 185-208.2002Holl KD, Lulow MEEffects of species, habitat, and distance from edge on post-dispersal seed predation in a tropical rainforest. Biotropica 29: 459-468.1997Howe HFFear and frugivory. American Naturalist 114: 925-931.1979Huang ZY, Wang Y, Zhang HM, Wu FQ, Zhang ZB.Behavioural responses of sympatric rodents to complete pilferage. Animal Behaviour 81:831-836.2011Hulbert AJ, Macmillen REThe influence of ambient temperature, seed composition and body size on water balance and seed selection in coexisting heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 75: 521-526.1988Hulme PEPost-dispersal seed predation and the establishment of vertebrate dispersed plants in Mediterranean scrublands. Oecologia 111: 91-98.1997Hurly TA, Lourie SAScatterhoarding and larderhoarding by red squirrels: size, dispersion, and allocation of hoards. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 529-537.1997Jansen PA, Forget PMScatter-hoarding rodents and tree regeneration. In: “Nouragues: dynamics and plant-animal interactions in a neotropical rainforest” (Bongers F, Charles-Dominique P, Forget PM, Théry M eds). Kluwer Academic Publ, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 275-288.2001Jansen PA, Bartholomeus M, Bongers F, Elzinga JA, Den Ouden J, Van Wieren SEThe role of seed size in dispersal by a scatter-hoarding rodent. In: “Seed dispersal and frugivory: ecology, evolution and conservation” (Levey D, Silva WR, Galetti M eds). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 209-225.2002Jenkins SH, Rothstein A, Green WCHFood hoarding by merriams kangaroo rats - a test of alternative hypotheses. Ecology 76: 2470-2481.1995Kaufman LW, Collier GThe economics of seed handling. American Naturalist 118: 46-60.1981Kelrick MI, MacMzhon JANutritional and physical attributes of seed of some common sagebrush-steppe plants: some implications for ecological theory and management. Journal of Range Management 38: 65-69.1985Kerley GIH, Erasmus TWhat do mice select for in seeds? Oecologia 86: 261-267.1991Kollmann J, Coomes DA, White SMConsistencies in post-dispersal seed predation of temperate fleshy-fruited species among seasons, years and sites. Functional Ecology 12: 683-690.1998Lai X, Guo C, Xiao ZSTrait-mediated seed predation, dispersal and survival among frugivore-dispersed plants in a fragmented subtropical forest, Southwest China. Integrative Zoology 9: 246-254.2014Li HJ, Zhang ZBEffects of mast seeding and rodent abundance on seed predation and dispersal by rodents in Prunus armeniaca (Rosaceae). Forest Ecology and Management 242:511-517.2007MacDonald DWFood caching by red foxes and some other carnivores. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 42: 170-185.1976MacDonald IMVField experiments on duration and precision of grey and red squirrel spatial memory. Animal Behaviour 54: 879-891.1997Meng L, Gao X, Chen J, Martin KSpatial and temporal effects on seed dispersal and seed predation of Musa acuminata in southern Yunnan, China. Integrative Zoology 7: 30-40.2012Moles AT, Warton D, Westoby MDo small-seeded species have higher survival through seed predation than large-seeded species? Ecology 84: 3148-3161.2003Moore JE, Swihart RKNut selection by captive blue jays: importance of availability and implications for seed dispersal. Condor 108: 377-388.2006Muñoz A, Bonal RRodents change acorn dispersal behaviour in response to ungulate presence. Oikos 116: 1631-1638.2007Muñoz A, Bonal RAre you strong enough to carry that seed? Seed size/body size ratios influence seed choices by rodents. Animal Behaviour 76: 709-715.2008aMuñoz A, Bonal RSeed choice by rodents: learning or inheritance? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62: 913-922.2008bO’Farrill G, Galetti M, Campos-Arceiz AFrugivory and seed dispersal by tapirs: an insight on their ecological role. Integrative Zoology 8: 4-17.2013Pons J, Pausas JGNot only size matters: Acorn selection by the European jay (Garrulus glandarius). Acta Oecologica 31: 353-360.2007Preston SD, Jacobs LFConspecific pilferage but not presence affects Merriam’s kangaroo rat cache strategy. Behavioural Ecology 12: 517-523.2001Pyke GHOptimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 15: 523-575.1984Roth JK, Vander Wall SBPrimary and secondary seed dispersal of Bush Chinquapin (Fagaceae) by scatterhoarding rodents. Ecology 86: 2428-2439.2005Shen Z, Guo SH, Yang YQ, Yi XFDecrease of large-bodied dispersers limits recruitment of large-seeded trees but benefits small-seeded trees. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 58: 53-67.2012Smallwood PD, Steele MA, Faeth SHThe ultimate basis of the caching and dispersers. In: “Seed dispersal” (Murray DR ed). Academic Press, Sydney, Australia, pp. 191-235.2001Steele MA, Knowles T, Bridle K, Simms ETannins and partial consumption of acorns: implications for dispersal of oaks by seed predators. The American Midland Naturalist 130: 229-238.1993Steele MA, Turner G, Smallwood PD, Wolff JO, Radillo JCache management by small mammals: experimental evidence for the significance of acorn embryo excision. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 35-42.2001Steele MA, Manierre S, Genna T, Contreras T, Smallwood PD, Pereira MThe innate basis of food hoarding decisions in grey squirrels: evidence for behavioral adaptations to the oaks. Animal Behaviour 71: 155-160.2006Takechi R, Tamura N, Hayashi FImproved walnut-feeding skills with experience in wood mice Apodemus speciosus. Journal of Ethology 27: 83-89.2009Vander Wall SBFood hoarding in animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp. 453.1990Wang W, Ma KP, Gao XMSpatial and temporal patterns of Quercus liaotungensis acorn predation by vertebrates in Dongling Mountain, Northern China. Acta Botanica Sinica 42: 289-293.2000Wang ZY, Cao L, Zhang ZBSeed traits and taxonomic relationships determine the occurrence of mutualisms versus seed predation in a tropical forest rodent and seed dispersal system. Integrative Zoology 9: 309-319.2014Xiao ZS, Zhang ZB, Wang YSDispersal and germination of big and small nuts of Quercus serrata in subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest. Forest Ecology and Management 195: 141-150.2004Xiao ZS, Zhang ZB, Wang YSEffects of seed size on dispersal distance in five rodent-dispersed fagaceous species. Acta Oecologica 18: 221-229.2005aXiao ZS, Zhang ZB, Wang YSThe effects of seed abundance on seed predation and dispersal by rodents in Castanopsis fargesii (Fagaceae). Plant Ecology 177: 249-257.2005bXiao ZS, Wang YS, Harris M, Zhang ZBSpatial 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 Ecology and Management 222: 46-54.2006Xiao ZS, Gao X, Zhang ZBThe combined effects of seed perishability and seed size on hoarding decisions by Pére David’s rock squirrels. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 67: 1067-1075.2013Yang XP, Xiao XHAnimal Physiology. Higher Education Press, Beijing, China, pp. 378. [in Chinese].2002Yang YQ, Yi XF, Niu KKThe effects of kernel mass and nutrition reward on seed dispersal of three tree species by small rodents. Acta Ethologica 15: 1-8.2011Yi XF, Yang YQScatter hoarding of Manchurian walnut Juglans mandshurica by small mammals: response to seed familiarity and seed size. Acta Theriologica 56: 141-147.2010Yi XF, Yang YQEffectiveness of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) seed dispersal by small rodents in fragmented and primary forests. Polish Journal of Ecology 59: 413-422.2011Yi XF, Zhang ZBSeed predation and dispersal of glabrous filbert (Corylus heterophylla) and pilose filbert (Corylus mandshurica) by small mammals in a temperate forest, northeast China. Plant Ecology 196: 135-1422008Yi XF, Xiao ZS, Zhang ZBSeed dispersal of Korean pine Pinus koraiensis labeled by two different tags in a northern temperate forest, northeast China. Ecological Research 23: 379-384.2008Yi XF, Yang YQ, Zhang ZBIntra- and inter-specific effects of mast seeding on seed fates of two sympatric Corylus species. Plant Ecology 212: 785-793.2011Zhang HM, Zhang ZBEndocarp thickness affects seed removal speed by small rodents in a warm-temperate broad-leafed deciduous forest, China. Acta Oecologica 158: 57-63.2008Zhang HM, Cheng JR, Xiao ZS, Zhang ZBEffects of seed abundance on seed scatter-hoarding of Edward’s rat (Leopoldamys edwardsi Muridae) at the individual level. Oecologia 158: 57-63.2008Zhang MM, Steele MA, Yi XFReconsidering the effects of tannin on seed dispersal by rodents: Evidence from enclosure and field experiments with artificial seeds. Behavioural Processes 10: 200-207.2013Zhang YF, Wang C, Tian SL, Lu JQDispersal and hoarding of sympatric forest seeds by rodents in a temperate forest from northern China. iForest 7: 70-74.2014
Seed removal of five sympatric seed species from seed stations by individual of each rodent species in semi-natural enclosures. (A): Apodemus peninsulae (n = 9); (B): Tamias sibiricus (n = 7); (C): Clethrionomys rufocanus (n = 7). Data are expressed as mean ± SE.
Seed fates of five sympatric seed species manipulated by individual of each rodent species in semi-natural enclosures. (A): Apodemus peninsulae (n = 9); (B): Tamias sibiricus (n = 7); (C): Clethrionomys rufocanus (n = 7). (IIS): intact in situ; (EIS): eaten in situ; (EAR): eaten after removal; (IAR): intact after removal; (SH): scatter-hoarded; (LH): larder-hoarded. Data are expressed as mean ± SE.
Morphological and nutritional traits of the five seed species (mean ± SD). These seeds were the same as those in the removal experiments. (*): Data are drawn from Yi & Zhang (2008), Yi et al. (2011), and Yang et al. (2011).
Seed traits
Seed species
Juglans mandshurica
Corylus mandshurica
Corylus heterophylla
Quercus mongolica
Pinus koraiensis
Seed size (length × width - cm)
4.19 × 2.89
1.43 × 1.20*
1.58 × 1.44*
2.52 × 1.84
1.60 × 1.11*
Seed mass (g)
13.61 ± 1.28
0.73 ± 0.08*
1.18 ± 0.28*
2.86 ± 0.21
0.73 ± 0.05*
Seed coat thickness (cm)
0.32 ± 0.65
0.11 ± 0.01*
0.24 ± 0.03*
0.05 ± 0.01
0.11 ± 0.01*
Proportion of kernel mass (%)
21.10 ± 0.86
38.57 ± 3.55
18.66 ± 4.29
85.75 ± 1.66
37.03 ± 1.82*
Tannin concentration (%)
0.07 ± 0.01
0.25 ± 0.02*
0.07 ± 0.02*
4.33 ± 0.34
0.02 ± 0.01*
Protein (%)
27.02 ± 0.71
20.30 ± 0.16
28.27 ± 0.11
7.40 ± 0.21
16.18 ± 0.25
Fat (%)
61.11 ± 0.25
47.09 ± 0.14
0.24 ± 0.03
1.76 ± 0.14
37.92 ± 0.46
Starch (%)
0.07 ± 0.07
1.13 ± 0.25
0.00 ± 0
38.27 ± 1.97
0.42 ± 0.06
Caloric value per seed (KJ)
81.61 ± 0.21
6.21 ± 0.02*
4.30 ± 0.03*
20.96 ± 0.97
7.44 ± 0.05*
Caloric value of seed species (KJ/g)
41.63 ± 0.11
17.74 ± 0.05
13.45 ± 0.11
9.52 ± 0.44
29.77 ± 0.19
The effects of seed and rodent species on seed fates of the five sympatric tree species. Data are seed numbers and expressed as mean ± SD. Different letters in the same column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 among seed or rodent species. Seed fates in the table were defined as: intact in situ (IIS), eaten in situ (EIS); eaten after removal (EAR), intact after removal (on surface - IAR), scatter-hoarded (SH) and larder-hoarded (LH).
Type
Species
IIS
EIS
IAR
EAR
SH
LH
Seed species
Pinus koraiensis
0.95 ± 1.85 a
2.20 ± 3.24 a
0.20 ± 0.41 a
2.75 ± 2.27 a
1.30 ± 1.30 a
2.60 ± 2.39 a
Corylus mandshurica
2.40 ± 2.82 b
2.45 ± 3.44 a
0.25 ± 0.44 a
3.15 ± 2.30 a
0.40 ± 0.82 b
1.35 ± 1.14 b
Corylus heterophylla
3.30 ± 3.25 b
2.75 ± 3.70 a
0.10 ± 0.31 a
2.70 ± 2.30 a
0.10 ± 0.31 c
1.05 ± 0.94 c
Juglans mandshurica
6.45 ± 3.68 b
0.05 ± 0.22 c
0.40 ± 0.82 a
0.50 ± 1.00 b
0.35 ± 0.59 b
2.25 ± 2.38 a
Quercus mongolica
1.10 ± 1.45 a
3.85 ± 4.12 b
0.15 ± 0.37 a
3.95 ± 2.72 c
0.00 ± 0.00 c
1.00 ± 1.49 c
Rodent species
Apodemus peninsulae
1.82 ± 1.66 a
0.33 ± 0.77 a
0.24 ± 0.61 a
4.42 ± 2.21 a
0.44 ± 0.72 a
2.73 ± 1.84 a
Tamias sibiricus
2.09 ± 4.02 a
5.97 ± 3.39 b
0.11 ± 0.32 a
1.00 ± 0.94 b
0.66 ± 1.16 a
0.20 ± 0.41 b
Clethrionomys rufocanus
6.45 ± 2.46 b
0.10 ± 0.31 a
0.35 ± 0.49 a
1.40 ± 2.00 b
0.00 ± 0.00 b
1.80 ± 1.80 a
Two-way ANOVA summary of seed fates correlated with seed and rodent species.
SeedFates
Source
Sum ofSquares
df
MeanSquare
F value
P value
IS
Rodent species
327.169
2
163.585
166.928
< 0.001
Seed species
390.573
4
97.643
99.639
< 0.001
EIS
Rodent species
742.469
2
371.234
487.364
< 0.001
Seed species
122.558
4
30.639
40.224
< 0.001
IAR
Rodent species
0.756
2
0.378
1.813
0.169
Seed species
0.353
4
0.088
0.424
0.791
EAR
Rodent species
270.262
2
135.131
104.642
< 0.001
Seed species
114.278
4
28.570
22.124
< 0.001
SH
Rodent species
5.513
2
2.757
6.532
0.002
Seed species
13.820
4
3.455
8.186
< 0.001
LH
Rodent species
126.600
2
63.300
46.032
< 0.001
Seed species
48.490
4
12.123
8.816
< 0.001
Linear regression results between seed fates and seed traits. Seed fates in the table were defined as: intact in situ (IIS), eaten in situ (EIS); eaten after removal (EAR), intact after removal (on surface) (IAR), scatter-hoarded (SH) and larder-hoarded (LH).