南京中山植物园鸟类对香樟 果实(种子)的取食
作者:
作者单位:

南京林业大学生物与环境学院 南京 210037

基金项目:

江苏省高校优势学科建设工程项目


Bird Feeding on the Fruits (Seeds) of Camphor Trees in Nanjing Zhongshan Botanical Garden, China
Author:
Affiliation:

College of Biology and Environment,Nanjing Forestry University

  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [1]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    香樟(Cinnamomum camphora)是亚热带地区广泛分布的常绿阔叶树种,其果实数量多、果期长,可为鸟类提供大量食物资源。2018年11月至2019年2月,借助Safari 10 × 26变焦双筒望远镜,采用焦点扫描法对南京中山植物园内访问香樟果实(种子)的鸟类行为进行观察,详细记录鸟类的种类、取食基质、取食次数、取食时间、取食数量和取食方式等信息。研究期间有效记录达48 d,累计记录到27种鸟类1 021次取食香樟果实(种子)行为,存在2种取食基质(地面和树上)和3种取食方式(整吞果实、啄食果肉和取食种子)。T检验显示,不同鸟类对香樟果实(种子)的取食次数存在显著差异(t = 3.096,df = 26,P < 0.01);不同月份间鸟类对香樟香樟果实(种子)的平均访问只数、平均取食次数、平均取食时间和取食数量均存在极显著差异(P < 0.001)。白头鹎(Pycnonotus sinensis)、乌鸫(Turdus mendarinus)和灰喜鹊(Cyanopica cyanus)是访问次数及取食量最多的3种鸟类。单因素方差分析(One-way ANOVA)表明,上述这3种鸟类的取食数量存在极显著差异(F3, 598 = 25.219,P < 0.001)。按照时间统计,11月份访问的鸟类种类和数量最多,1月份鸟类的取食次数、时间和数量最多。鸟类的形态特征(体重、体长和嘴峰长)与取食数量呈显著正相关,其中,体重和体长对取食数量的影响比嘴峰长的影响更显著,但嘴峰长影响鸟类对果实的取食方式。在鸟类常活动和停歇的树木下方地面往往散落着较多表面洁净、无果肉包裹的香樟种子,且园内人工林和自然更新林地可见许多香樟幼苗,表明鸟类对香樟具有潜在传播作用。

    Abstract:

    The Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora) is an evergreen broad-leaved tree species with abundant fruits and a long fruit period, which is widely distributed in subtropical areas. With Safari l0 × 26 zoom binoculars, the focus scanning method was adopted to observe the bird behavior of visiting Camphor trees in Nanjing Zhongshan Botanical Garden, China, from November 2018 to February 2019. The information of bird species, foraging substrates, foraging frequency, foraging time, foraging amount and foraging methods were recorded. For the 48 effective days of observation, a total of 1 021 foraging behavior of 27 species of birds were recorded with 2 foraging substrates (ground and tree) and 3 foraging methods (swallow the fruits, pecking at pulp and seed predation) (Table 1). One-Sample T-test showed that there were significant differences in foraging frequency among different bird species (t = 3.096, df = 26, P < 0.01). There were significant differences in the average number of visits, average foraging frequency, average foraging time and foraging amount between birds in different months (P < 0.001, Fig. 1). Light-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus sinensis), Chinese Blackbird (Turdus mendarinus) and Azure-winged Magpie (Cyanopica cyanus) are the three types of birds with the most visit and foraging amount (Fig. 2). One-way ANOVA showed that there were significant differences in foraging amount among the three species (F3, 598 = 25.219, P < 0.001). In terms of time, more species and quantity of birds visited in November in comparison with those in other months, and the foraging frequency, time and amount on the fruits in January were the largest. The morphological characteristics (body weight, body length and bill length) of birds were positively correlated with the foraging amount of the fruits (Fig. 4). Effects of body weight and body length on the foraging amount were more significant than that of the bill length, but bill length could affect the feeding methods significantly (Fig. 3). Many seeds with clean surface and no pulp wrapped were found under the trees acting as roosting site of birds. Many Camphor seedlings of can be seen in plantations and natural regeneration woodlands, which indicates that birds may play a role in seed dispersal of Camphor trees.

    参考文献
    Armesto J J, Rozzi R. 1989. Seed dispersal syndromes in the Rain Forest of Chiloe: Evidence for the importance of biotic dispersal in a temperate rain forest. Journal of Biogeography, 16(3): 219– 226. Chapman F C A. 1993. Frugivores and fruit syndromes: Differences in patterns at the genus and species level. Oikos, 66(3): 472–482. Clobert J, Jean-Fran?ois L G, Cote J, et al. 2009. Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecology Letters, 12(3): 197– 209. Donoso I, Schleuning M, García, et al. 2017. Defaunation effects on plant recruitment depend on size matching and size trade-offs in seed-dispersal networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1855): 20162664. Du Y, Mi X, Liu X, et al. 2009. Seed dispersal phenology and dispersal syndromes in a subtropical broad-leaved forest of China. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7): 1147–1152. Duan Q, Goodale E, Quan R C. 2013. The effect of color on fruit selection in six Tropical Asian birds. The Condor, 115(3): 623– 629. Duan Q, Goodale E, Quan R C. 2014. Bird fruit preferences match the frequency of fruit colours in tropical Asia. Scientific Reports, 4: 5627. Herrera C M, Pellmyr O. 2002. Plant Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach. USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hespenheide H A. 1973. Ecological inferences from morphological mata. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 4(4): 213–229. Howe H F. 1980. Monkey dispersal and waste of a Neotropical fruit. Ecology, 61(4): 944–959. Li N, Wang Z, Li X, et al. 2018. Bird functional traits affect seed dispersal patterns of China’s endangered trees across different disturbed habitats. Avian Research, 9(1): 13. Link A, Stevenson P R. 2004. Fruit dispersal syndromes in animal disseminated plants at Tinigua National Park, Colombia. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 77(2): 319–334. Lord J M. 2010. Frugivore gape size and the evolution of fruit size and shape in southern hemisphere floras. Austral Ecology, 29(4): 430–436. Mohammed M, Landi P, Minoarivelo H O, et al. 2018. Frugivory and seed dispersal: Extended bi-stable persistence and reduced clustering of plants. Ecological Modelling, 380: 31–39. Pijl L V D. 1970. Principles of dispersal in higher plants. Quarterly Review of Biology, 72(4): 499. Rey P J, Guiterrez J E, Alcantara J, et al.1997. Fruit size in wild olives: implications for avian seed dispersal. Functional Ecology, 11(5): 611–618. Schleuning M, Blüthgen N, Florchinger M, et al. 2011. Specialization and interaction strength in a tropical plant-frugivore network differ among forest strata. Ecology, 92(1): 26–36. Silvia B L, Kimball S R T. 2008. Correlated evolution of fig size and color supports the dispersal syndromes hypothesis. Oecologia, 156(4): 783–796. Simmons B I, Sutherland W J, Dicks L V, et al. 2018. Moving from frugivory to seed dispersal: incorporating the functional outcomes of interactions in plant-frugivore networks. Journal of Animal Ecology, 87(4): 995–1007. Sorensen A E. 1981. Interactions between birds and fruit in a temperate woodland. Oecologia, 50(2): 242–249. Tamboia T, Cipollini M L, Levey D J. 1996. An evaluation of vertebrate seed dispersal syndromes in four species of black nightshade (Solanum sect. Solanum). Oecologia, 107(4): 522–532. 李新华, 尹晓明, 贺善安. 2001. 南京中山植物园秋冬季鸟类对植物种子的传播作用. 生物多样性, 9(1): 68–72. 刘佳庆, 李宁, 熊天石, 等. 2014. 濒危植物南方红豆杉不同种群的结构和动态变化. 热带亚热带植物学报, 22(5): 479–485. 潘扬, 徐丹, 鲁长虎, 等. 2017. 食果鸟类对红楠种子的传播作用. 生态科学, 36(2): 63–67. 任华东, 姚小华. 2000. 香樟种子性状产地表型变异研究. 江西农业大学学报, 22(3): 370–370. 文赤夫, 赵虹桥, 田春莲, 等. 2006. 樟树熟果红色素提取工艺及稳定性研究. 食品科学, 27(04): 157–160. 约翰×马敬能, 卡伦×菲利普斯, 何芬奇. 2000. 中国鸟类野外手册. 湖南教育出版社. 张啸然, 王淼, 王卉, 等. 2018. 南京紫金山国家森林公园繁殖鸟类多样性及年间变化. 野生动物学报, 39(2): 310–316. 赵正阶. 2001. 中国鸟类志. 吉林科学技术出版社.
    引证文献
    引证文献 [1]
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

陆彩虹,鲁长虎.2019.南京中山植物园鸟类对香樟 果实(种子)的取食.动物学杂志,54(6):784-792.

复制
文章指标
  • 点击次数:1239
  • 下载次数: 1833
  • HTML阅读次数: 0
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2019-06-13
  • 最后修改日期:2019-10-29
  • 录用日期:2019-10-28
  • 在线发布日期: 2019-12-10