Premium
Microhabitat selection for caching and use of potential landmarks for seed recovery by a neotropical rodent
Author(s) -
Ribeiro J. F.,
Vieira E. M.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of zoology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1469-7998
pISSN - 0952-8369
DOI - 10.1111/jzo.12380
Subject(s) - biology , hoarding (animal behavior) , cache , araucaria , selection (genetic algorithm) , seed predation , predation , tree (set theory) , ecology , seed dispersal , feeding behavior , zoology , artificial intelligence , computer science , biological dispersal , population , mathematical analysis , demography , mathematics , sociology , operating system
Abstract Scatter‐hoarding rodents may interact with the structural characteristics of their environment in several ways: by seeking dense areas inside the forest for protection during seed handling, by caching seeds close to objects that might be used as visual cues for seed recovery or by hiding themselves inside refuges such as burrows. We investigated the use of structural characteristics of the forest by a scatter‐hoarder rodent (the Azara's agouti, Dasyprocta azarae ) in the Brazilian Araucaria Forest. We evaluated the selection of microhabitat characteristics for feeding or caching seeds, and the selection of potential landmarks for increasing seed recovery rates. For that, we followed threaded seeds of Araucaria angustifolia (Araucariaceae) and also placed artificial caches in the forest. We predicted that agoutis (1) select feeding and caching sites whose microhabitat characteristics potentially enhance protection against predators, (2) hoard seeds preferentially near potential landmarks and (3) find artificial caches placed near potential landmarks more frequently than caches placed away (<0.5 m) from any landmark. As expected, agoutis significantly selected feeding and caching sites with greater herbaceous cover, closer to tree trunks, and with higher tree density compared to randomly selected sites. Considering potential landmarks, agoutis not only selected sites near to fallen logs and treelets for caching but also preferred the latter for immediate seed consumption. Moreover, seeds buried near treelets were recovered more frequently than seeds cached near fallen logs, tree trunks or exposed rocks. The proximity of potential landmarks, however, did not influence seed removal from artificial caches, suggesting that visual cues do not enhance seed location by naive foragers. Our conclusions are: (1) agoutis transport seeds to potentially safer places for immediately consuming or burying them; (2) fallen logs and treelets are potential visual cues for seed recovery; and (3) naive foragers seem to use mainly olfactory cues for seed detection.