Fruit-frugivore interactions in a Malagasy littoral forest - Universiteit ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Intersite comparison Comparison of fruit characteristics between sites Morphology Five out of eleven morphological parameters differed significantly between both study sites (Table 4). In STL, berries are the dominating type of fruit followed closely by drupes. In KIR drupes are most abundant followed by berries and capsules. Fruit pulp in STL is mostly soft and juicy. In KIR the majority of fruits has a rather dry and fibrous pulp. Remarkable is the large number of odoriferous fruits in STL while in KIR only one third of the fruits was classified as odoriferous. KIR has more dehiscent fruits and thick-husked indehiscent fruits than STL where 75% of fruits are indehiscent and thin-husked. Concerning dispersal type, zoochorous fruits prevail both in KIR and STL, but KIR has more non-zoochorous fruits than STL. However this difference was no longer significant after sequential Bonferroni adjustment. There is no significant difference between study sites for colour, number of seeds, fruit length, fruit mass, seed length and seed protection. Chemistry The chemical composition of mature fruits differed between sites in most chemical variables except for extractable proteins and sugars. Lipid concentrations were significantly higher in STL while NDF, ADF, total nitrogen, and procyanidin tannins were higher in KIR (Table 5). After rigorous adjustment for Type I errors (Rice 1989), there was only a significant difference for NDF, ADF and tannins. Comparison of diets of Eulemur and Cheirogaleus between sites Morphology Fruits eaten by both lemur species at both sites did not differ significantly in growth form, number of seeds, fruit length, fruit mass, seed length or seed protection (Table 4). However significant differences were found with respect to pulp type and the protection of fruits consumed by Eulemur and Cheirogaleus at both sites. The observed difference corresponds to the differential availability of fruits with different types of pulp and protection at both sites. Even though significantly fewer berries but more capsules were available in KIR than in STL (Table 4), this difference was not apparent when comparing diets of both lemurs between sites. Both species seemed to prefer berries and drupes even when these are less common and harder to find. In contrast, proportions of fruit colours did not differ significantly between samples eaten by C. medius, although E. fulvus did eat significantly more brown and green fruits in KIR and more yellow, orange and red fruits in STL. The proportion of odoriferous fruits eaten by both lemur species was higher in STL than in KIR, though the difference is not significant in the case of C. medius. KIR also had significantly more non-zoochorous fruits than STL, but still zoochorous fruits dominate the fruit diet of both lemur species at both sites. Chemistry Except for higher tannin concentrations in fruits consumed in KIR, none of the concentrations of the plant chemicals differed between fruits eaten by C. medius in STL and KIR (Table 6). Fruits consumed by E. fulvus contained higher concentrations of fibre and tannins in KIR than in STL. These results correspond with the biochemical differences in overall fruit availability between sites. Only the difference between fibre content remains significant after sequential Bonferroni. 121
Chapter 4 Table 4. Morphological characteristics of fruits collected in Sainte Luce and Kirindy and of fruits eaten by Cheirogaleus medius and Eulemur fulvus ssp. at the two sites. The X²-values were calculated for comparisons between sites; * P
Page 1 and 2:
Fruit-frugivore interactions in a M
Page 3 and 4:
Cover photographs: Front: Back: -
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents III. General conc
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements A special word of
Page 10:
PREFACE Preface This work brings to
Page 13 and 14:
General introduction Finally, seed
Page 15 and 16:
General introduction high as 98% fo
Page 19 and 20:
’Hazo tokana tsy mba ala’ One t
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 1 changes in resource avail
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 1 For analyses we narrowed
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 1 Fig. 2. Seasonal variatio
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 1 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 1 Fig 4. Comparison of data
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 Table 4. Data on phenolog
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 1 Relation with abiotic fac
Page 35 and 36:
Chapter 1 Malagasy rainforests disp
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 1 Appendix I Continued Fami
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 1 Appendix I Continued Fami
Page 41 and 42:
Malagasy proverb Drawing © Giusepp
Page 43 and 44:
Chapter 2 the successful establishm
Page 45 and 46:
Chapter 2 40 Table 1. The frugivore
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 2 Statistical analyses To v
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 2 Overall fruit trap data d
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 Table 3. Morphological an
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 2 depressed seeds (Fig. 3a)
Page 55 and 56:
Chapter 2 Fig. 3. Ordination plot o
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 2 On a community level the
Page 59 and 60:
Chapter 2 Appendix II. Plant-animal
Page 63 and 64:
Malagasy proverb Lemur drawing © S
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 3 different consumer specie
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Bollen et al. in press, C
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 3 64 Body 1,2 Body lenght (
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 3 dominant plant families s
Page 73 and 74:
Chapter 3 Table 4. Morphological an
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 3 Table 4 Continued Paramet
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 3 Besides testing feeding s
Page 79 and 80: Chapter 3 and do not consume the fi
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 3 (1997) already pointed ou
Page 83 and 84: Chapter 3 1989; Galetti 1993; Saini
Page 85 and 86: Chapter 3 Appendix I. All plant spe
Page 87 and 88: Chapter 3 Other SD Hss Rats Rr Ew 8
Page 90 and 91: Pteropus rufus Feeding ecology of P
Page 92 and 93: Pteropus rufus number per species a
Page 94 and 95: Pteropus rufus Table 1 Continued Fr
Page 96 and 97: Pteropus rufus larger number of spe
Page 98 and 99: Table 2 Continued Number of seeds/d
Page 100 and 101: Pteropus rufus Food selection: expl
Page 102 and 103: Pteropus rufus presence. On the oth
Page 104 and 105: Pteropus rufus Marshall (1983). Occ
Page 106 and 107: Coracopsis nigra The feeding ecolog
Page 108 and 109: Coracopsis nigra fruit pulp (70%) b
Page 110 and 111: Coracopsis nigra Table 1 Continued
Page 112 and 113: Coracopsis nigra Table 2. Morpholog
Page 115 and 116: Malagasy proverb Drawing of fruits
Page 117 and 118: Chapter 4 Most seed dispersal studi
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 4 Mean temperature is aroun
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 4 Number of seeds: 1-2, 3-1
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 4 Fig. 2. Monthly fruit ava
Page 125: Chapter 4 120 Table 3. Soil charact
Page 129 and 130: Chapter 4 Table 5. Biochemical char
Page 131 and 132: Chapter 4 Chemistry At both sites,
Page 133 and 134: Chapter 4 considering species numbe
Page 137 and 138: ’Ny valala tsy indroa mandry eo a
Page 139 and 140: Chapter 5 environmental degradation
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 5 at a very low density in
Page 143 and 144: Chapter 5 Table 1. A list of plant
Page 145 and 146: Chapter 5 (Ganzhorn et al. 1999a).
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 5 Animals The degree of vul
Page 149 and 150: Chapter 5 comm.). Mixed species pla
Page 151 and 152: Chapter 5 data are needed we believ
Page 153 and 154: General conclusion as in other site
Page 155 and 156: General conclusion selection pressu
Page 157 and 158: General conclusion are consumed by
Page 159 and 160: Samenvatting omstandigheden zijn bo
Page 161 and 162: Samenvatting vruchtkenmerken. Beide
Page 163 and 164: Samenvatting zaadverspreiding moete
Page 165 and 166: Résumé température et précipita
Page 167 and 168: Résumé (Sud-est de Madagascar) et
Page 169 and 170: Résumé des frugivores sur l’év
Page 171 and 172: References Bollen A, Van Elsacker L
Page 173 and 174: References Dowsett JR (2000) Le sta
Page 175 and 176: References Godfrey LR, Junger WL, R
Page 177 and 178:
References Janson CH, Chapman CA (1
Page 179 and 180:
References Marshall AG (1983) Bats,
Page 181 and 182:
References Rabevohitra R, Lowry PP,
Page 183 and 184:
References Tattersall I (1982) The
Page 186:
family Loganiaceae scientific name
show all

Fruit-frugivore interactions in a Malagasy littoral forest - Universiteit ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?