Abstract
Different practical problems restrict the possibility of rigorously testing the role of plants as keystone species in tropical forests, and therefore we do not yet know the impacts that could result from their removal. Currently, the criteria used to suggest keystone plant species in tropical forests include an assessment of their importance in supporting frugivore communities during periods of fruit scarcity, their reliability during these periods, their abundance, and the number of species that feed on their fruits. However, even for resources that match these criteria it has been shown that the density of these plant species is not necessarily correlated with the abundance of frugivores, so their relevance is still an open question. In this study I use information on feeding behavior and phenological data collected over three years in Tinigua National Park, Colombia, to identify potential plant keystone resources for the fruiteating animals. Among 29 plant species that produced fruit or were consumed in periods of fruit scarcity, I found virtually no case of a species that could maintain a large proportion of the frugivore community. Plant species previously suggested playing keystone roles, such as palms and figs, were included in the list. But palms did not support a very large coterie of frugivores and figs were reliable only at the genus level. The fact that only 3 of the 29 species suggested to play keystone roles at Tinigua were present in a recent review of the potential keystone resources in Neotropical forests (Peres, 2000), suggests that species playing important roles in one community may be unimportant in other localities. I conclude that postulating keystone resources in tropical forests might lead to strategies to protect local animal guilds, but it is difficult to find species that could support the majority of frugivores in complex communities and it is naïve to generalize about their roles across localities. I suggest that the bulk of frugivores in Tinigua (i.e. primates) may use fat reserves accumulated during periods of fruit abundance to survive the lean period, and therefore keystone resources might not be restricted to particular seasons.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
References
Adler, G. H. (1998). Impacts of resource abundance on populations of a tropical forest rodent. Ecology, 79, 242–254.
Angulo, M. A. (2001). Determinación del rango de hogar y patrones de actividad de una manada de monos ardilla (Saimiri sciureus) en el Parque Nacional Natural Tinigua. Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas. Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Anstett, M. C., HossaertMcKey M. & McKey, D. (1997). Modeling the persistence of small populations of strongly interdependent species: Figs and fig wasps. Conservation Biology 11, 204–213.
Bender, E. A., Case T. J. & Gilpin, M. E. (1984). Perturbation Experiments in Community Ecology-Theory and Practice. Ecology, 65, 1–13.
Conklin, N. L. & Wrangham, R. W. (1994). The Value of Figs to a Hind-Gut Fermenting Frugivore-a Nutritional Analysis. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 22, 137–151.
Defler, T. R. & Defler, S. B. (1996). Diet of a group of Lagothrix lagothricha lagothricha in Southeastern Colombia. International Journal of Primatology, 17, 161–189.
Dew. L. (2001). Synecology and Seed Dispersal in Woolly Monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii) and Spider Monkeys (Ateles belzebuth belzebuth) in Parque Nacional Yasuni, Ecuador. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Di Fiore, A. F. (1997). Ecology and behavior of lowland woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha poeppigii, Atelinae) in Eastern Ecuador. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Di Fiore, A. (2001). Ranging behavior and foraging ecology of lowland woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suppl. 32, 59–59.
Fietz, J. & Ganzhorn, J. U. (1999). Feeding ecology of the hibernating primate Cheirogaleus medius: how does it get so fat? Oecologia, 121, 157–164.
Fincke, O. M., Yanoviak, S. P. & Hanschu, R. D. (1997). Predation by odonates depresses mosquito abundance in water-filled tree holes in Panama. Oecologia, 112, 244–253.
Garwood, N. (1982). Seasonal rythm of seed germitation in a semideciduous forest. In E. G. Leigh Jr., A. S. Rand & D. M. Windsor (Eds.), the Ecology of a Tropical Forest (pp. 173–185). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Gautier-Hion, A. & Michaloud, G. (1989). Are Figs Always Keystone Resources for Tropical Frugivorous Vertebrates-a Test in Gabon. Ecology, 70, 1826–1833.
Howe, H. F. (1977). Bird Activity and Seed Dispersal of a Tropical Wet Forest Tree. Ecology, 58, 539–550.
Janson, C. H. (1984). Female choice and mating system of the brown capuchin monkey Cebus apella (Primates: Cebidae). Journal of Comparative Ethology, 65, 177–200.
Janson, C. H. & Emmons, L. H. (1990). Ecological Structure of teh nonflying mammal community at Cocha Cashu biological station, Manu National Park, Peru. In A. Gentry (Ed.). Four neotropical rainforests (pp. 314–338). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mills, L. S., Soule M. E. & Doak, D. F. (1993). The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology and Conservation. Bioscience, 43, 219–224.
Paine, R. T. 1969. Pisaster-Tegula Interaction-Prey Patches, Predator Food Preference, and Intertidal Community Structure. Ecology, 50, 950–961.
Peres, C. A. (1994a). Diet and Feeding Ecology of Gray Woolly Monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha cana) in Central Amazonia-Comparisons With Other Atelines. International Journal Primatology, 15, 799–799.
Peres, C. A. (1994b). Which are the largest New World monkeys? Journal of Human Evolution, 26, 245–249.
Peres, C. A. (2000). Identifying keystone plant resources in tropical forests: the case of gums from Parkia pods. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 16, 287–317.
Power, M. E., Matthews, W. J. & Stewart, A. J. (1985). Grazing minnows, piscivorous baass and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology, 66, 1448–1456.
Power, M. E. & Mills, L. S. (1995). The Keystone Cops Meet in Hilo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 182–184.
Stevenson, P. R. (2001). The Relationship between fruit production and primate abundance in Neotropical forests. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 72, 161–178.
Stevenson, P. R., Quiñones, M. J. & Ahumada, J. A. (2000). Influence of fruit availability on ecological overlap among four neotropical primates at Tinigua National Park, Colombia. Biotropica, 32, 533–544.
Stevenson, P. R. (2002). Frugivory and Seed Dispersal by Woolly Monkeys at Tinigua Park, Colombia. PhD. dissertation. Dept. of Anthroppology. SUNY at Stony Brook.USA.
Strier, K.B. (1992). Atelinae Adaptations-Behavioral Strategies and Ecological Constraints. American Journal of Physical.Anthropology, 88, 515–524.
Terborgh, J. (1986). Keystone plant resources in the tropical forests. In M. E. Soule (Ed.). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity (pp. 330–344)., Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nunez, P., Rao, M. Shahabuddin,, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R. Adler, G. H. Lambert, T. D. & Balbas, L. (2001). Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science, 294, 1923–1926.
Terborgh, J. & van Schaik, C. P. (1987). Convergence vs. nonconvergence in Primate Communities. In J. H. Gee, & P. S. Giller (Eds.). Organization of Communities, Past and Present (pp. 205–226). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
van Schaik, C. P. & Pfannes, K. (2002). Tropical Climates and Phenology: a primate perspective (inpress).
van Schaik, C. P., Terborgh, J. & Wright, S. J. (1993). The Phenology of Tropical Forests-Adaptive Significance and Consequences for Primary Consumers. Annual. Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24, 353–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stevenson, P. (2005). Potential Keystone Plant Species for the Frugivore Community at Tinigua Park, Colombia. In: Dew, J.L., Boubli, J.P. (eds) Tropical Fruits and Frugivores. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3833-X_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3833-X_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3832-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3833-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)