| Literature DB >> 32076524 |
Ádám Lovas-Kiss1, Orsolya Vincze1,2, Erik Kleyheeg3, Gábor Sramkó4, Levente Laczkó5, Réka Fekete5, Attila Molnár V5, Andy J Green6.
Abstract
Field studies have shown that waterbirds, especially members of the Anatidae family, are major vectors of dispersal by endozoochory for a broad range of plants lacking a fleshy fruit, yet whose propagules can survive gut passage. Widely adopted dispersal syndromes ignore this dispersal mechanism, and we currently have little understanding of what traits determine the potential of angiosperms for endozoochory by waterbirds. Results from previous experimental studies have been inconsistent as to how seed traits affect seed survival and retention time in the gut and have failed to control for the influence of plant phylogeny. Using 13 angiosperm species from aquatic and terrestrial habitats representing nine families, we examined the effects of seed size, shape, and hardness on the proportion of seeds surviving gut passage through mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and their retention time within the gut. We compiled a molecular phylogeny for these species and controlled for the nonindependence of taxa due to common descent in our analyses. Intact seeds from all 13 species were egested, but seed survival was strongly determined by phylogeny and by partial effects of seed mass and hardness (wet load): species with seeds harder than expected from their size, and smaller than expected from their loading, had greater survival. Once phylogeny was controlled for, a positive partial effect of seed roundness on seed survival was also revealed. Species with seeds harder than expected from their size had a longer mean retention time, a result retained after controlling for phylogeny. Our study is the first to demonstrate that seed shape and phylogeny are important predictors of seed survival in the avian gut. Our results demonstrate that the importance of controlling simultaneously for multiple traits and relating single traits (e.g., seed size) alone to seed survival or retention time is not a reliable way to detect important patterns, especially when phylogenetic effects are ignored.Entities:
Keywords: Anas platyrhynchos; endozoochory; phylogeny; retention time; seed dispersal; seed traits
Year: 2020 PMID: 32076524 PMCID: PMC7029096 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
(a) Numbers of events when seeds were fed to ducks (three trials with up to eight ducks) then subsequently recovered intact, in relation to the total number of such events and the total number of seeds ingested during the experiments. (b) Number of intact seeds retrieved, and the median, mean, maximum, and mode of retention time
| Plant species | (a) | (b) Retention time | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval events/Ingestion events | Seeds ingested |
| Med | Mean | Max | Mode | |
|
| 21/24 | 2,194 | 257 | 4 | 6.07 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 13/24 | 2,095 | 32 | 4 | 8.09 | 21 | 4 |
|
| 24/24 | 2,298 | 1,173 | 4 | 5.94 | 45 | 4 |
|
| 16/16 | 1,555 | 758 | 4 | 8.26 | 45 | 4 |
|
| 15/16 | 1,505 | 95 | 4 | 5.67 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 24/24 | 2,167 | 312 | 4 | 5.6 | 45 | 4 |
|
| 24/24 | 2,350 | 577 | 4 | 4.64 | 21 | 4 |
|
| 19/24 | 2,222 | 150 | 4 | 5.63 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 8/8 | 795 | 173 | 4 | 4.17 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 13/16 | 1,598 | 151 | 4 | 4.04 | 7 | 4 |
|
| 19/24 | 1,037 | 82 | 4 | 6.09 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 16/24 | 2,253 | 100 | 4 | 5.74 | 31 | 4 |
|
| 1/24 | 802 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
These times are a proxy for retention time, and true retention times would be lower at some unknown point between the intervals when feces were collected. For example, a maximum of 45 hr refers to a true maximum somewhere between 31 and 45 hr.
Figure 1Proportion of seeds surviving gut passage for different plant species (mean ± SE for different ducks/trials), plotted alongside the molecular phylogeny. Accession numbers of sequences obtained from GenBank: Allium angulosum: LN867002; Bolboschoenus planiculmis: GQ130341; Cuscuta lupuliformis: DQ924570; Cyperus flavescens: KF150598; Echinochloa crus‐galli: AB353387; Elatine hungarica: KX555590; Elatine hydropiper: KX555592; Glycyrrhiza echinata: U56000; U55999; Lychnis coronaria: AY857966; Sparganium erectum: KF265394
Figure 2Dynamics of seed passage, showing overall proportions of intact seeds recovered at each time period for each plant species
Figure 3Proportion of ingested seeds recovered intact after 4, 7, 21, 31, and 45 hr for each duck event. Each line represents a different duck event (from three trails, each using eight ducks)
(a) Linear mixed‐effects model of the proportion of seeds passed in response to seed traits for 13 plant species, showing their partial effects. The effect of random terms (marked by italics) was assessed by likelihood‐ratio statistics. (b) A similar model run using MCMCglmm and incorporating phylogenetic relatedness
| (a) | β ( | χ2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log(wet load) | 0.20 (0.06) | 9.31 | 1 | .0022 |
| log(seed mass) | −0.16 (0.05) | 8.75 | 1 | .0031 |
| log(ratio water permeability) | −0.41 (0.47) | 0.74 | 1 | .9623 |
| log(shape dry) | 0.15 (0.09) | 2.75 | 1 | .0972 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Seed survival after gut passage in relation to thousand seed mass (g) and wet load (kg) for 13 plant species. The size of the circles is proportional to the percentage of ingested seeds that survived gut passage. Slope and associated 95% confidence intervals represent the association between wet load and seed mass, estimated based on a linear regression
(a) Linear mixed‐effects model of mean retention time, giving partial effects of seed traits. The effect of random terms (marked in italics) was assessed using likelihood‐ratio statistics. (b) A similar model run using MCMCglmm and including phylogenetic relatedness.
| (a) | β ( | χ2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log(wet load) | 0.18 (0.06) | 7.95 | 1 | .0048 |
| log(thousand seed mass) | −0.07 (0.05) | 2.22 | 1 | .1359 |
| log(ratio water permeability) | 0.39 (0.44) | 0.79 | 1 | .3754 |
| log(shape dry) | 0.03 (0.08) | 0.13 | 1 | .7139 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5Relationship between seed hardness (wet load) and mean retention time shown on a sunflower plot. Dots represent single data points, while the number of petals shows the number of data points with similar parameter values. Slope and associated 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model presented in Table 3a