Observing frugivores or collecting scats: a method comparison to construct quantitative seed dispersal networks
Observing frugivores or collecting scats: a method comparison to construct quantitative seed dispersal networks
复制标题
观察食果动物或收集粪便：构建定量种子传播网络的方法比较
作者：
Schlautmann;Rehling;Albrecht;Jaroszewicz;Schabo;Farwig
互惠的相互作用构成了许多生态过程的基础，并经常在生态网络的框架内进行分析。这些相互作用可以用一系列方法进行采样，对不同方法取样的授粉网络的初步分析表明，在共同的网络指标上存在差异。然而，尚不清楚种子传播网络的度量是否同样受到采样方法的影响，以及不同的方法是否检测到互补的食果动物。这对于更好地了解每种方法的（非）优势以及确定每种果实在种子传播过程中的作用是必要的。本研究比较了10种焦点植物上2189个食蚜动物的种子去除网络与3094个食蚜动物粪便中种子DNA条形码构建的种子沉积网络。我们感兴趣的是这两种方法是否鉴定出相同的散布者物种，以及植物物种的物种水平网络指标在网络类型之间是否相关。两种方法都发现了相同的鸟类超级通才食果动物，它们占传播种子的数量最多。然而，只有DNA条形码，我们发现了难以捉摸但频繁出现的哺乳动物种子传播者。两种方法构建的网络总体上是一致的，但在植物种类程度、相互作用频率和专门化指数（d′）上存在差异。我们的研究表明，对排便和反刍种子的DNA条形码可以用来构建定量的种子沉积网络，类似于通过焦点观察构建的网络。为了提高种子传播网络的整体完整性，将这两种方法结合起来检测鸟类和哺乳动物的相互作用可能是有用的。最重要的是，DNA条形码方法提供了传播后阶段的信息，从而提供了每种果实对植物群落的定性贡献，从而将物种相互作用与肉质果实植物物种的再生动态联系起来。
Mutualistic interactions form the basis for many ecological processes and are often analyzed within the framework of ecological networks. These interactions can be sampled with a range of methods and first analyses of pollination networks sampled with different methods showed differences in common network metrics. However, it is yet unknown if metrics of seed dispersal networks are similarly affected by the sampling method and if different methods detect a complementary set of frugivores. This is necessary to better understand the (dis‐)advantages of each method and to identify the role of each frugivore for the seed dispersal process.Here, we compare seed removal networks based on the observation of 2189 frugivore visits on ten focal plant species with seed deposition networks constructed by DNA barcoding of plant seeds in 3094 frugivore scats. We were interested in whether both methods identify the same disperser species and if species‐level network metrics of plant species were correlated between network types.Both methods identified the same avian super‐generalist frugivores, which accounted for the highest number of dispersed seeds. However, only with DNA barcoding, we detected elusive but frequent mammalian seed dispersers. The overall networks created by both methods were congruent but the plant species' degree, their interaction frequency and their specialization index (d′) differed.Our study suggests that DNA barcoding of defecated and regurgitated seeds can be used to construct quantitative seed deposition networks similar to those constructed by focal observations. To improve the overall completeness of seed dispersal networks it might be useful to combine both methods to detect interactions by both birds and mammals. Most importantly, the DNA barcoding method provides information on the post‐dispersal stage and thus on the qualitative contribution of each frugivore for the plant community thereby linking species interactions to regeneration dynamics of fleshy‐fruited plant species.
登录
查看更多内容
比亚沃维耶扎森林——欧洲森林高度自然的遗迹
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
B. Jaroszewicz;Olga Cholewińska;J. Gutowski;T. Samojlik;Marcelina Zimny;M. Latałowa
通讯作者：
M. Latałowa
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bobiec, A;van der Burgt, H;Vlaanderen, B
通讯作者：
Vlaanderen, B
DOI：
10.1007/978-1-61779-591-6_7
发表时间：
2012-01-01
期刊：
Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lijtmaer, Dario A;Kerr, Kevin C R;Tubaro, Pablo L
通讯作者：
Tubaro, Pablo L
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Alarcon, Ruben
通讯作者：
Alarcon, Ruben
影响因子：
8.8
作者：
Bosch, Jordi;Martin Gonzalez, Ana M.;Navarro, David
通讯作者：
Navarro, David