Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:29:27.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-dispersal seed and seedling mortality of tropical dry forest trees after shifting agriculture, Chiapas, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

D. S. Hammond
D. S. Hammond
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vertebrate attack accounted for 98.4% of all seed loss during the two months following dispersal. This accounted for, across all habitat types, 94% of Bursera, 76% of Spondias, 37% of Swietenia and 25% of Erythrina seeds artificially dispersed. Bursera, Spondias and Swietenia seeds in early successional habitat suffered significantly greater predation than in either older abandoned (30 y) or mature forest plots. Erythrina showed generally low loss to predation in all plots. Seeds attacked were more often removed from, rather than buried or eaten at, the dispersal site. In young secondary habitats, however, seeds of Bursera and Spondias were more frequently eaten at the site. Seeds dispersed individually rather than in larger aggregations (5, 10) were more likely to survive in mature forest and late secondary habitat. This advantage was lost in Bursera and Swietenia when they were dispersed to younger successional habitats.

At the early seedling stage, recruitment of Bursera and Swietenia was highest in the older secondary habitats. Seedlings of Erythrina showed the lowest overall losses to any of the mortality factors identified during the first two months of establishment. Seeds of forest tree species arriving in secondary habitat were more vulnerable to attack by non-flying vertebrates than in mature forest. Survival of seedlings of these species was most closely related to the moisture-conserving status of the habitat.

Keywords

Bursera simarubadesiccationErythrina goldmaniiMexicopathogenseed predationshifting agricultureSpondias mombinSwietenia humilistropical dry forest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , May 1995 , pp. 295 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Augspurger, C. K. 1984. Seedling survival of tropical tree species: interactions of dispersal distance, light gaps, and pathogens. Ecology 65:1705–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, W. H. 1968. Anacardiaceae. Flora of Panama. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 54:363–366.Google Scholar
Breedlove, D. E. 1981. Part 1: Introduction to the Flora of Chiapas. Pp. 1–33 in Breedlove, D. E. (ed.). Flora of Chiapas. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
Brown, S. & Lugo, A. E. 1990. Tropical secondary forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates-Estrada, R. & Estrada, A. 1988. Frugivory and seed dispersal in Cymbopetalum baillonii (Annonaceae) at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4:157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croat, T. B. 1978. Flora of Barro Colorado Island. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Garwood, N. C. 1983. A community study of seed germination in a seasonal tropical forest in Panama. Ecological Monographs 53:159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, D. S. 1991. Restoration of tropical dry forest after agriculture in Chiapas, Mexico. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.240 pp.Google Scholar
Holdridge, L. R., Grenke, W. C., Hatheway, W. H., Liang, T. & Tosi, J. A. 1971. Forest environments in tropical life zones. Pergamon Press, NY. 747 pp.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. 1987. Seed dispersal by fruit-eating birds and mammals. Pp. 162–190 in Murray, D. R. (ed.). Seed dispersal. Academic Press, Sydney, London, 322 pp.Google Scholar
Howe, H. F. & Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H. S. 1990. Survival and growth of juvenile Virola surinamensis in Panama: effects of herbivory and canopy closure. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1967. Synchronization of sexual reproduction of trees within the dry season in C. America. Evolution 21:620–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1972. Intra- and interhabitat variations in Guazuma ulmfolia (Sterculiaceae) seed predation by Amblycerus cistelinus (Bruchidae) in Costa Rica. Ecology 56:1009–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. 1985. Spondias mombin is culturally deprived in megafauna-free forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 1:131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H., Miller, G. A., Hackforth-Jones, J., Pond, C. M., Hooper, K. & Janos, D. P. 1976. Two Costa Rican bat-generated seed shadows of Andira inermis (Leguminosae). Ecology 57:1068–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. H. & Vázquez-Yanes, C. 1991. Aspects of tropical seed ecology of relevance to management of tropical forested wildlands. Pp. 137–154 in Gómez-Pompa, A., Whitmore, T. C. & Hadley, M. (eds). Rain forest regeneration and management. MAB, Vol. 6. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Kitajima, K. & Augspurger, C. K. 1989. Seed and seedling ecology of a monocarpic tropical tree, Tachigalia versicolor. Ecology 70:1102–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, F. B. 1966. Mahogany of tropical America: its ecology and management. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 220 pp.Google Scholar
Miranda, F. & Hernandez, X. E. 1963. Los tipos de vegetación de Mexico y su clasificación. Boletin Sociedad Botanica de Mexico 28:29–179.Google Scholar
Mullerried, F. G. N. 1952. Geologia de Chiapas. Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
Peto, R. & Pike, M. C. 1973. Conservatism of the approximation Σ(X - Σ)2/Σ in the logrank test for survival data or tumor incidence data. Biometrics 29:2579–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennington, T. D. & Sarukhán, J. 1968. Arboles tropicales de Mexico. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Mexico, DF. 413 pp.Google Scholar
Price, M. V. & Jenkins, S. H. 1986. Rodents as seed consumers and dispersers. Pp. 191–235 in Murray, D. R. (ed.). Seed dispersal. Academic Press, London. 322 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. 1984. Allelopathy. Academic Press, NY. 240 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupp, E. W. 1988. Factors affecting post-dispersal seed survival in a tropical forest. Oecologia 76:525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupp, E. W., Howe, H. F., Augspurger, C. K. & Levey, D. J. 1989. Arrival and survival in tropical treefall gaps. Ecology 70:562–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, P. E. & Martin, R. F. 1984. Avian consumers of Bursera, Ficus and Ehretia fruit in Yucatán. Biotropica 16:319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silander, J. A. Jr. 1978. Density-dependent control of reproductive success in Cassia biflora. Biotropica 10:292–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trainer, J. M. & Will, T. C. 1984. Avian methods of feeding on Bursera simaruba (Burseraceae) fruits in Panama. Auk 101:193–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl, C. 1987. Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. Journal of Ecology 75:377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl, C. 1988. Restoration of degraded lands in the Amazon. Pp. 326–332 in Wilson, E. O. & Peter, F. M. (eds). Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 411 pp.Google Scholar
Uhl, C., Clark, K., Clark, H. & Murphy, P. 1981. Early plant succession after cutting and burning in the Upper Rio Negro Region of the Amazon Basin. Journal of Ecology 69:631–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaartaja, O. 1952. Forest humus quality and light conditions as factors influencing damping-off. Phytopathology 42:501–506.Google Scholar
Whitmore, T. C. 1975. Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 278 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E. & Janzen, D. H. 1972. Predation on Scheelea palm seeds by bruchid beetles: seed density and distance from the parent palm. Ecology 53:954–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar