| Literature DB >> 31534692 |
Tanja K Petersen1,2, Hans Henrik Bruun3.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Seed dispersal by mammals provides functional connectivity between isolated plant habitat patches. Across much of Europe, red deer (Cervus elaphus) populations are growing steadily, potentially leading to increasing importance of this large mammal species to plant dispersal. While deer endozoochory is relatively well studied, epizoochory via fur and hoof attachment is much less understood. Seed dispersal internally and externally on 57 red deer individuals was investigated by sampling the seed content of intestinal tracts, fur, and hooves of animals shot during annual hunts in four contrasted landscapes in Denmark. We assessed compositional differences between dispersal modes whether plant species' association to a dispersal mode could be predicted by seed traits, whole-plant traits, and species' local abundance. We found the largest difference in seed species composition to be between epizoochory (fur and hooves) and endozoochory (gut contents). Probability of plant dispersal through guts and fur was correctly predicted from traits more often than not. Hoof-epizoochory, however, could not be correctly predicted from plant traits. Most plant species encountered were picked up by all three dispersal modes, suggesting an overriding effect of plant abundance in the landscapes in which the deer roam, which was also indicated by the statistical analysis. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of species were associated with either gut, fur, or hoof-borne dispersal, reflecting the effect of plant traits and, potentially, animal behavior. Plant species being dispersed more often than expected through intestines were mainly associated with ruderal habitats, whereas species transported via fur tended toward association with wooded habitats. Considering the increasing red deer populations in Europe, and the differences between seed dispersal modes, all modes of animal seed dispersal should be taken into account in future studies. OPEN RESEARCH BADGES: This article has been awarded Open Data and Open Materials Badges. All materials and data are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7982483 and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7982483.Entities:
Keywords: Cervus elaphus; dispersal mode; endozoochory; epizoochory; seed dispersal; seed functional traits
Year: 2019 PMID: 31534692 PMCID: PMC6745656 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Sampling locations within Denmark. Red deer were sampled during annual hunts in September‐December 2015. In total, 57 red deer were sampled: 10 from Jægersborg Dyrehave (sampled on 22 September, 20 October, and 28 October), 21 from Lille Vildmose (sampled on 9–14 October and 2 November), 22 from Oksbøl (sampled on 29 October, 3 November, 11 November, and 10 December) and 4 from Torbenfeldt (sampled on 27 November). Inset map shows the location of Denmark within north‐western Europe
Numbers of identified species and diaspores for each site and in total. The samples were collected on red deer shot during the annual regulatory hunts in September–December 2015. The species numbers are conservative, assuming unidentified species to belong to an already identified species (unless this was obviously not the case). The number of species and diaspores are the sum across all sampled individual deer within a site, within each dispersal mode
| Site | Fur | Hooves | Feces | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Diaspores | Species | Diaspores | Species | Diaspores | Species | Diaspores | |
| Jægersborg Dyrehave ( | 10 | 699 | 10 | 321 | 15 | 438 | 24 | 1,458 |
| Lille Vildmose ( | 17 | 2,894 | 21 | 336 | 26 | 420 | 44 | 3,650 |
| Oksbøl ( | 13 | 251 | 9 | 48 | 9 | 97 | 21 | 396 |
| Torbenfeldt ( | 7 | 39 | 7 | 28 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 70 |
| Total | 32 | 3,883 | 32 | 733 | 33 | 958 | 65 | 5,574 |
Species list of all identified species from the fur and hoof samples. Numbers are specified for each of the locations, Jægersborg Dyrehave (n = 10), Lille Vildmose (n = 21), Oksbøl (n = 22), and Torbenfeldt Manor (n = 4)
| Species | Site | Fur | Subtotal | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoof | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 165 | 179 | 219 |
| 14 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 4 | 14 | ||
| 10 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 7 | 16 | ||
| 9 | ||||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 8 | 10 | ||
| 2 | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | – | 2 | 6 |
| 2 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 4 | 4 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 39 | 88 | 100 |
| 49 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 11 | 12 | ||
| 1 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| 1 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | – | 3 | ||
| 3 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 1 | 1 | ||
| – | ||||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | – | 1 | 78 |
| 1 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 49 | 77 | ||
| 28 | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 27 | 43 | 43 |
| 16 | ||||
|
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| – | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 1 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 2 | 2 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 6 | 20 | 20 |
| 14 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| 1 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 1 | 3 | ||
| 2 | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | – | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| – | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | ||
| 1 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 147 | 177 | 211 |
| 30 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 24 | 34 | ||
| 10 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 5 | 22 | 28 |
| 17 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 6 | 6 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Torbenfeldt Manor | – | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | ||||
|
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| – | ||||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 2 | 2 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 321 | 560 | 3,308 |
| 239 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 2,511 | 2,631 | ||
| 120 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 117 | 117 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 5 | 6 | 89 |
| 1 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | 17 | 61 | ||
| 44 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 2 | 8 | ||
| 6 | ||||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 14 | 14 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 220 | 243 | 304 |
| 23 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 51 | 61 | ||
| 10 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | ||||
|
| Torbenfeldt Manor | – | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| – | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Oksbøl | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 11 | 11 |
| 11 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 6 | 6 |
| 6 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | ||||
| Oksbøl | 2 | 2 | ||
| – | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Torbenfeldt Manor | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | ||||
| Oksbøl | – | 1 | ||
| 1 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 43 | 60 | 60 |
| 17 | ||||
|
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | ||||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | – | 1 | 31 |
| 1 | ||||
| Lille Vildmose | – | 1 | ||
| 1 | ||||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 12 | 29 | ||
| 17 | ||||
|
Minimum no. of species for total epizoochory: 46 | 4,616 |
“Minimum no. species” indicates a conservative count: All diaspores not identified to species level are assumed to belong to an already identified species, unless this was obviously not the case. “Maximum no. species” indicates the species number, if diaspores not identified to species level belongs to a new species.
The diaspore was too damaged to make a more specific identification than to family level.
The diaspores could not be identified further than to genus level due to damage or other missing characters.
Species/genera could not be told apart.
Not belonging to the two identified Poa‐species, but species could not be determined exactly.
Species list of all identified species from the gut samples. Numbers are specified for each of the locations, Jægersborg Dyrehave (n = 10), Lille Vildmose (n = 21), Oksbøl (n = 16), and Torbenfeldt Manor (n = 3)
| Species | Site | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 123 | 182 |
| Lille Vildmose | 44 | ||
| Oksbøl | 14 | ||
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 1 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 3 | 25 |
| Lille Vildmose | 15 | ||
| Oksbøl | 7 | ||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 9 | 9 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 4 | 4 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 69 | 75 |
| Oksbøl | 6 | ||
|
| Oksbøl | 1 | 1 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 4 |
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | ||
| Oksbøl | 2 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 4 | 13 |
| Lille Vildmose | 9 | ||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 6 | 6 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 3 | 3 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 25 | 25 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 2 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 2 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 91 | 92 |
| Oksbøl | 1 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 61 | 110 |
| Lille Vildmose | 18 | ||
| Oksbøl | 31 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 15 | 54 |
| Lille Vildmose | 37 | ||
| Oksbøl | 2 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 17 | 17 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | 1 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 12 | 16 |
| Lille Vildmose | 4 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 6 | 6 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 63 | 65 |
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | ||
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 1 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 16 | 16 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 29 | 29 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 1 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 1 | 35 |
| Lille Vildmose | 1 | ||
| Oksbøl | 33 | ||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 6 | 6 |
|
| Jægersborg Dyrehave | 105 | 107 |
| Torbenfeldt Manor | 2 | ||
|
| Lille Vildmose | 2 | 2 |
|
| Lille Vildmose | 46 | 46 |
| Total number of species: 33 | 958 | ||
Species could not be told apart.
Figure 2(a) The distribution of number of diaspores from each sampled animal within each dispersal mode (numbers have been log‐transformed). (b) The distribution of number of identified species from each sampled animal within each dispersal mode
Differences in seed species composition between dispersal modes evaluated with linear mixed effects models and with sample coordinates along NMDS ordination axes 1, 2, and 3 as response variables. (a) NMDS axis 1, (b) NMDS axis 2, and (c) NMDS axis 3
| Fixed effects | Random effects | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate |
|
| Groups | Variance |
| |
| (a) NMDS axis 1 | ||||||
| Endozoochory (intercept) | −0.919 | 0.201 | −4.561 | ID:Site | 0.047 | 0.217 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | 1.217 | 0.123 | 9.874 | Site | 0.120 | 0.347 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | 1.012 | 0.123 | 8.233 | Residual | 0.310 | 0.557 |
| (b) NMDS axis 2 | ||||||
| Endozoochory (intercept) | 0.153 | 0.294 | 0.520 | ID:Site | 0.028 | 0.167 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | −0.397 | 0.105 | −3.783 | Site | 0.315 | 0.561 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | −0.701 | 0.105 | −6.695 | Residual | 0.225 | 0.475 |
| (c) NMDS axis 3 | ||||||
| Endozoochory (intercept) | −0.143 | 0.189 | −0.761 | ID:Site | 0.042 | 0.205 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | 0.037 | 0.116 | 0.316 | Site | 0.105 | 0.325 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | 0.093 | 0.115 | 0.803 | Residual | 0.274 | 0.523 |
Estimate = variable coefficient. As the predictor variable (Dispersal mode) is factorial, endozoochory is used as baseline and all other coefficients are relative to that.
Abbreviations: SE, Standard error, SD, Standard deviation.
Figure 3Coordinates of the NMDS ordination for each sample (individual deer) within each dispersal mode. Coordinates along the first axis (NMDS axis 1) (a), second axis (NMDS axis 2) (b) and third axis (NMDS axis 3) (c). The ordination is done based on species composition of each sample. Variation in coordinates between the three dispersal modes indicates significantly different species compositions between the groups. Statistically significant differences in coordinates are indicated with letters (post hoc Tukey test, p < .05)
Figure 4Visualization of separation of the data by the linear discriminant analysis (LDA). The more separated the different dispersal modes, the better the LDA can discriminate between the groups, based on the predictor variables. Percentage figures in parentheses after axis titles indicate the between‐group variance explained by the linear discriminants
Prediction of dispersal mode by seed traits and whole‐plant traits assessed with linear discriminant analysis. The relative importance of the predictor variables can be assessed by comparing the absolute values of the coefficients of the LDA
| LD1 | LD2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Log(seed mass) | −0.145 | 1.033 |
| Log(releasing height) | 0.698 | 0.610 |
| Log(SNP) | 0.545 | 0.038 |
| Seed shape (Vs) | 0.172 | −0.133 |
| Landscape occupancy | 0.418 | −0.034 |
Seed shape = variance in dimensions. Landscape occupancy = proportion of the 25 5 km × 5 km grid cells centered on the sampling site, in which the species is present.
Abbreviation: SNP, Seed number per ramet.
Dispersal mode predicted for each diaspore by the LDA (columns) versus the observed dispersal mode (rows). The diagonal represents the correct predictions, highlighted in bold. Seeds for which all predictor variables were not available were excluded from the analysis
| Observed | Predicted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endozoochory | Fur‐epizoochory | Hoof‐epizoochory | No. observed seeds within dispersal mode | |
| Endozoochory |
| 188 | 0 | 398 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | 47 |
| 29 | 1,913 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | 33 | 258 |
| 311 |
| No. predicted seeds within dispersal mode | 290 | 2,283 | 49 | |
Observed species numbers bearing the specified appendage type and Pearson residuals from a Χ 2 contingency table (observed‐expected/) for each dispersal mode. A positive residual indicated more species with the particular appendage was observed than what was expected from the null hypothesis, a negative residual indicated fewer species with the particular appendage type was observed, compared to the null hypothesis
| Bristly | Hairs | Hooks | None | Other | Winged | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endozoochory | ||||||
| Observed no. species | 3 | 4 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 0 |
| Pearson residual | −0.556 | 0.976 | −1.016 | 0.538 | −0.587 | −1.173 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | ||||||
| Observed no. species | 5 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 1 |
| Pearson residual | 0.500 | −0.516 | 2.000 | −0.350 | −0.577 | −0.289 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | ||||||
| Observed no. species | 4 | 1 | 0 | 21 | 1 | 3 |
| Pearson residual | 0.066 | −0.483 | −0.984 | −0.200 | 1.193 | 1.505 |
Observed species numbers for each habitat association and Pearson residuals from a Χ 2 contingency table (observed−expected/ ) for each dispersal mode. A positive residual indicated more species with the particular appendage was observed than what was expected from the null hypothesis, a negative residual indicated fewer species with the particular appendage type was observed, compared to the null hypothesis
| Grassland | Ruderal | Wetland | Woodland | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endozoochory | ||||
| Observed no. species | 15 | 11 | 3 | 3 |
| Pearson residual | 0.333 | 2.130 | −0.828 | −1.661 |
| Fur‐epizoochory | ||||
| Observed no. species | 15 | 1 | 5 | 10 |
| Pearson residual | 0.456 | −1.960 | 0.154 | 0.985 |
| Hoof‐epizoochory | ||||
| Observed no. species | 10 | 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Pearson residual | −0.808 | −0.207 | 0.698 | 0.714 |