Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:34:35.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phenology, abundance and consumers of figs (Ficus spp.) in a tropical cloud forest: evaluation of a potential keystone resource

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2013

Gustavo H. Kattan*
Affiliation:
Fundación EcoAndina, Carrera 2 A Oeste No. 12-111, Cali, Colombia Departamento de Ciencias Naturales y Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali, Avenida Cañasgordas No. 118-250, Cali, Colombia
Leonor A. Valenzuela
Affiliation:
Fundación EcoAndina, Carrera 2 A Oeste No. 12-111, Cali, Colombia Departamento de Ecología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Santiago, Chile
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract:

Fig trees (Ficus spp) produce fruit year-round and figs are consumed by a large proportion of frugivores throughout the tropics. Figs are potential keystone resources that sustain frugivore communities during periods of scarcity, but studies have produced contradictory results. Over 1 y we monitored the phenology of 206 trees of five Ficus species in a Colombian cloud forest, to test whether figs produced fruit during periods of low overall fruit availability. We also measured fig tree densities in 18 0.5-ha plots and made 190 h of observations at 24 trees of three species to determine whether figs were abundant and consumed by a large proportion of the local frugivores. The five species produced fruit year-round but fig availability varied monthly by orders of magnitude. Fig trees reached comparatively high densities of 1–5 trees ha−1 and were consumed by 36 bird species (60% of the local frugivore assemblage) and three mammal species. However, there was no season of fruit scarcity and figs represented on average 1.5% of the monthly fruit biomass. Figs in this Andean forest are part of a broad array of fruiting species and at least during our study did not seem to constitute a keystone resource.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

AGUILAR, M. & RANGEL, J. O. 1994. Clima del Parque Regional Natural Ucumarí y sectores aledaños. Pp. 3957 in Rangel, J. O. (ed.). Ucumarí: un caso típico de la diversidad biótica andina. Corporación Autónoma Regional de Risaralda, Pereira, Colombia.Google Scholar
ATAROFF, M. 2001. Venezuela. Pp. 397442 in Kapelle, M. & Brown, A. (eds). Bosques nublados del Neotrópico. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
ATHREYA, V. R. 1999. Light or presence of host trees: which is more important for the strangler fig? Journal of Tropical Ecology 15:589603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLEHER, B., POTGIETER, C. J., JOHNSON, D. N. & BÖHNING-GAESE, K. 2003. The importance of figs for frugivores in a South African coastal forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:375386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRONSTEIN, J. L. & PATEL, A. 1992. Causes and consequences of within-tree phenological patterns in the Florida strangling fig, Ficus aurea (Moracea). American Journal of Botany 79:4148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAPMAN, C. A., CHAPMAN, L. J., ZANNE, A. E., POULSEN, J. R. & CLARK, C. J. 2005. A 12-year phenological record of fruiting: implications for frugivore populations and indicators of climate change. Pp. 7592 in Dew, J. L. & Boubli, J. P. (eds). Tropical fruits and frugivores: the search for strong interactors. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOK, J. M. & RASPLUS, J. Y. 2003. Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:241248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DURÁN, S. M. & KATTAN, G. H. 2005. A test of the utility of exotic tree plantations for understory birds and food resources in the Colombian Andes. Biotropica 37:129135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARCÍA, D. & ORTIZ-PULIDO, R. 2004. Patterns of resource tracking by avian frugivores at multiple spatial scales: two case studies on discordance among scales. Ecography 27:187196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GAUTIER-HION, A. & MICHALOUD, G. 1989. Are figs always keystone resources for tropical frugivorous vertebrates? A test in Gabon. Ecology 70:18261833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GIRALDO, J. 1990. Estudio fenológico de una comunidad vegetal en un bosque montano húmedo en la cordillera Occidental. Cespedesia 16:5375.Google Scholar
GIRALDO, P., GÓMEZ-POSADA, C., MARTÍNEZ, J. & KATTAN, G. 2007. Resource use and seed dispersal by red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus) in a Colombian Andean forest. Neotropical Primates 14:5564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARRISON, R. D. 2005. Figs and the diversity of tropical rainforests. BioScience 55:10531064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KANNAN, R. & JAMES, D. A. 1999. Fruiting phenology and the conservation of the great pied hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in the western Ghats of southern India. Biotropica 31:167177.Google Scholar
KESSLER-RIOS, M. M. & KATTAN, G. H. 2012. Fruits of Melastomataceae: phenology in Andean forest and role as a food resource for birds. Journal of Tropical Ecology 28:1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KINNAIRD, M. F. & O'BRIEN, T. G. 2005. Fast foods of the forest: the influence of figs on primates and hornbills across Wallace's line. Pp. 155184 in Dew, J. L. & Boubli, J. P. (eds.). Tropical fruits and frugivores: the search for strong interactors. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KINNAIRD, M. F., O’BRIEN, T. G. & SURYADI, S. 1996. Population fluctuation in Sulawesi red-knobbed hornbills: tracking figs in space and time. Auk 113:431440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KORINE, C., KALKO, E. K. V. & HERRE, E. A. 2000. Fruit characteristics and factors affecting fruit removal in a Panamanian community of strangler figs. Oecologia 123:560568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAMBERT, F. R. & MARSHALL, A. G. 1991. Keystone characteristics of bird-dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. Journal of Ecology 79:793809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MILTON, K. 1991. Leaf change and fruit production in six neotropical Moraceae species. Journal of Ecology 79:126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUÑOZ, M. C., LONDOÑO, G. A., RIOS, M. M. & KATTAN, G. H. 2007. Diet of the Cauca guan: exploitation of a novel food source in times of scarcity. Condor 109:841851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’BRIEN, T. G., KINNAIRD, M. F., DIERENFELD, E. S., CONKLIN-BRITTAIN, N. L., WRANGHAM, R. W. & SILVER, S. C. 1998. What's so special about figs? Nature 392:668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PATEL, A. 1997. Phenological patterns of Ficus in relation to other forest trees in southern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:681695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERES, C. A. 2000. Identifying keystone plant resources in tropical forests: the case of gums from Parkia pods. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:287317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAGUSA-NETTO, J. 2002. Fruiting phenology and consumption by birds in Ficus calyptroceras (Miq.) Miq. (Moraceae). Brazilian Journal of Biology 62:339346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RIOS, M. M. 2005. ¿Quién come yarumo … o mejor, ¿quién no come yarumo en los bosques de montaña? Boletín SAO 15:515.Google Scholar
RIOS, M. M., GIRALDO, P. & CORREA, D. 2004. Guía de frutos y semillas de la cuenca media del río Otún. Fundación EcoAndina & Wildlife Conservation Society, Cali, Colombia. 248 pp.Google Scholar
SHANAHAN, M., SO, S., COMPTON, S. G. & CORLETT, R. 2001. Fig-eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biological Reviews 76:529572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
STEVENSON, P. 2005. Potential keystone plant species for the frugivore community at Tinigua Park, Colombia. Pp. 3758 in Dew, J. L. & Boubli, J. P. (eds). Tropical fruits and frugivores: the search for strong interactors. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TWEHEYO, M. & LYE, K. A. 2003. Phenology of figs in Budongo Forest Uganda and its importance for the chimpanzee diet. African Journal of Ecology 41:306316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar