Camera-trapping and seed-labelling reveals widespread granivory and scatter-hoarding of nuts by rodents in the Fynbos Biome

White, Joseph D.; Bronner, Gary N.; Midgley, Jeremy J.

doi:10.1080/15627020.2017.1292861

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identifying animal seed removers using camera traps is a common practice in ecological research on seed dispersal (Blackham & Corlett, 2015; Campos et al., 2018; Christianini & Galetti, 2007; Cramer et al., 2007; da Silva et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2018; Galetti et al., 2015; Iob & Vieira, 2008; Razafindratsima, 2017; Seufert et al., 2010; Ssali et al., 2018). Several studies have used camera traps to attribute single events of seed removal to particular animal species (Brown et al., 2016; Jansen et al., 2012; White et al., 2017). Our study used this same method to identify animal seed removers and to quantify their contribution to seed removal within a continuum of habitat disturbance, although we could not determine the animals responsible for all removal events due to camera failing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Dispersal Seed Removal in a Large-Seeded Palm by Frugivore Mammals in Western Ecuador

Escobar

Razafindratsima

Montúfar

et al. 2020

Tropical Conservation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-dispersal seed removal by ground-foraging frugivores promotes secondary dispersal of large seeds, reducing seed predation and increasing recruitment and regeneration. We studied how habitat disturbance influences seed removal patterns in the large-seeded palm Phytelephas aequatorialis within three habitats forming a continuum of disturbance (agroforestry system, disturbed forest, and less-disturbed forest) using seed removal experiments and camera trapping. We tested whether seed removal rates, and both richness and composition of seed remover communities varied between the habitats. On average, 15 seeds were removed under each tree in the agroforestry system over seven days, which was significantly lower compared to the disturbed forest (18) and the less-disturbed forest (19). Eight mammal species were identified removing seeds in the three habitats. On average, one mammal species removed seeds at each station in the agroforestry system, which was significantly lower than the two species observed in the two forests. The composition of seed remover communities was significantly different between the three habitats. Our results suggest that the loss of forest cover in the agroforestry system has reduced the richness of seed removers, which subsequently caused decreased removal rates. Nevertheless, this habitat could still maintain effective seed dispersal events because spiny rats were important seed removers. Our camera trap data should be taken as preliminary because we could only identify less than half of the animals responsible for seed removal. This study highlights the importance of medium- and large-sized rodents for the removal and effective dispersal of large seeds in disturbed tropical habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Dispersal Seed Removal in a Large-Seeded Palm by Frugivore Mammals in Western Ecuador

Escobar

Razafindratsima

Montúfar

et al. 2020

Tropical Conservation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This highlights the importance and great potential that camera trapping has in studying small mammals (Costa et al 2005;Bumrungsri et al 2013). Despite the vast amounts of data that cameras can potentially collect, there has been relatively little application of such methods in small mammal species (Di Cerbo and Biancardi 2013;Rovero et al 2013;Shadbolt 2014;McDonald et al 2015;Yamada et al 2016;White et al 2017;Gracanin et al 2019) compared to larger mammal species (see review by : Mccallum, 2013). More recently, a review into camera trapping studies on the African continent identified small mammals as an underrepresented taxa within the camera trapping studies reviewed (Agha et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the density of small mammals using the selfie trap is an effective camera trapping method

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera trapping to study wildlife allows for data collection, without the need to capture animals. Traditionally, camera traps have been used to target larger terrestrial mammal species, though recently novel methods and adjustments in procedures have meant camera traps can be used to study small mammals. The selfie trap (a camera trapping method) may present robust sampling and ecological study of small mammals. This study aimed to evaluate the selfie trap method in terms of its ability to detect species and estimate population density. To address this aim, standard small mammal live trapping was undertaken, immediately followed by camera trapping using the selfie trap. Both methods were set to target the arboreal sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) and semi-arboreal brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii). The more ground-dwelling bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) was also live trapped and recorded on camera. Across four survey areas, the probability of detection for each of the three species was higher for selfie traps than for live trapping. Spatially explicit capture-recapture models showed that selfie traps were superior at estimating density for brown antechinus and sugar gliders, when compared to simulated live trapping data. Hit rates (number of videos per various time intervals) were correlated with abundance. When correlating various hit rate intervals with abundance, the use of 10-min hit rate was best for predicting sugar glider abundance (R2 = 0.94). The abundance of brown antechinus was estimated from selfie traps using a 24-h hit rate as a predictor (R2 = 0.85). For sugar gliders, the selfie trap can replace live trapping as individuals can be identified through their unique facial stripes and natural ear scars, and thus used in capture-recapture analysis. This method may be useful for monitoring the abundance of other small mammal species that can also be individually recognized from photographs.

show abstract

“…We did not observe a single video occurrence of predation on small mammals on exposed inflorescences over 16 days implying that the AP hypothesis lacks support. Incidence of predation on small mammals was not observed in other studies (J.J. Midgley personal observation) which employed camera traps to observe small mammal pollination and dispersal in the Cape fynbos (Kühn, Midgley, & Steenhuisen, 2017; White, Bronner, & Midgley, 2017; Zoeller et al., 2016), and were not reported in other camera trap studies on NFMP proteas (Melidonis & Peter, 2015). We noted that carnivores were attracted to flowers, with the Cape Grey Mongoose observed on our cameras (Video ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Flowers are hidden in nonflying mammal‐pollinated plants to deter birds

Connolly

Midgley

2020

Afr J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera-trapping and seed-labelling reveals widespread granivory and scatter-hoarding of nuts by rodents in the Fynbos Biome

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Post-Dispersal Seed Removal in a Large-Seeded Palm by Frugivore Mammals in Western Ecuador

Post-Dispersal Seed Removal in a Large-Seeded Palm by Frugivore Mammals in Western Ecuador

Estimating the density of small mammals using the selfie trap is an effective camera trapping method

Flowers are hidden in nonflying mammal‐pollinated plants to deter birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About