Research Article |
Corresponding author: Cássio Cardoso Pereira ( cassiocardosopereira@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Patricia Nunes-Silva
© 2022 Cássio Cardoso Pereira, Daniel Meira Arruda, Fernanda de Fátima Santos Soares, Rúbia Santos Fonseca.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Pereira CC, Arruda DM, Soares FFS, Fonseca RS (2022) The importance of pollination and dispersal syndromes for the conservation of Cerrado Rupestre fragments on ironstone outcrops immersed in an agricultural landscape. Neotropical Biology and Conservation 17(1): 87-102. https://doi.org/10.3897/neotropical.17.e79247
|
Studies on pollination and seed dispersal are essential for the conservation of plant diversity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the pollination and dispersal syndromes of five fragments of the Cerrado Rupestre immersed in an agricultural landscape to answer the following questions: (i) What is the frequency of pollination and dispersal syndromes among species and individuals?; (ii) Which are the predominant pollination and seed dispersal syndromes in this environment?. A total of 66 species, belonging to 44 genera and 29 botanical families, were evaluated. Melittophily was the most common type of pollination syndrome, observed in 54.55% of the species, followed by phalenophily (9.09%), cantharophily, ornithophily, quiropterophilly and sphingophily (all 3.03%), and psychophilly (1.51%). Generalist pollination represented 22.73% of the records. Of the 1246 individuals identified, 59.23% were melitophilous, 25.20% generalists, 5.86% phalenophilous, 3.37% quiropterophilous, 2.49% cantharophilous, 2.25% ornithophilous, 1.44% sphingophilous and 0.16% psychophilous. Regarding dispersion syndromes, zoochory was the most common type of dispersion, observed in 68.18% of the species, followed by anemochory (28.79%) and autochory (3.03%). On the other hand, the frequency among individuals differed from the values found for frequency among species. Of the 1246 individuals identified, 55.38% were anemochoric, 43.10% zoochoric, and 1.52% autochoric. Our results demonstrate the predominance of biotic syndromes in the community, especially melittophily and zoochory, contributing to a better understanding of the functionality and availability of resources in the community, as well as indispensable information for the conservation, management, and restoration of natural environments.
anemochory, bees, canga, fruits, melittophily, neotropical savanna, zoochory anemochory, bees, canga, fruits, melittophily, neotropical savanna, zoochory
The reproduction in plant species involves many steps, and genetic diversity is influenced by pollinators and dispersers that promote gene flow (
Many floral characteristics may reflect adaptive responses to selection by pollinators, that is, some plant species may have characteristic floral phenotypes that are more adapted to more effective or frequent pollinators (
The frequency of pollination syndromes can vary according to several factors such as vegetation types and their plant strata (e.g.,
After pollination and successful reproduction, plants also adopt different strategies to disperse their fruits and seeds and guarantee seedling survival (
The frequency of dispersion syndromes can also vary between different environments (
Studies on pollination and seed dispersal are essential for the conservation of plant diversity in the tropics and to supply the consumption demands of populations (
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the pollination and dispersal syndromes of five fragments of the Cerrado Rupestre immersed in an agricultural landscape to answer the following questions: (i) What is the frequency of pollination and dispersal syndromes among species and individuals belonging to fragments?; (ii) Which are the predominant pollination and seed dispersal syndromes in this environment? These questions would bring evidence about the interactions between the vegetation community, flower visitors, and seed dispersers who could emphasize the need to preserve the fragmented vegetation. In this way, we approach the patterns of species and individuals of several botanical families through a floristic survey, determining the frequency of pollination and dispersal syndromes among plant species and also among the individuals present in these fragments.
The study was carried out in Rio Paranaíba, Minas Gerais, Brazil (19°11'38"S, 46°14'49"W, Fig.
Geographic location (A) and an aerial image of the municipality of the Rio Paranaíba (B), Minas Gerais, south-eastern Brazil, showing the five fragments of Cerrado Rupestre studied (image:
Five fragments of Cerrado Rupestre were studied, predominantly composed of a continuous crust of canga, also known as “canga couraçada” (
In December 2013, 10 random plots of 0.01 ha (10 × 10 m) were allocated, totaling 0.5 ha in each sampled fragment. (
The life forms of the plant species were classified according to
Because many species of pollinators can visit the same plant, especially in the absence of resources, the use of pollination syndromes has been the subject of much discussion in the literature, and their use requires caution (
The types of fruits were classified according to
Information about pollination and dispersal syndromes was obtained from the literature (
We extract frequency data regarding life form, fruit type, pollination and dispersal syndromes, and we build pie charts on these syndromes to explore our data. All analyses were conducted using R base package on R software (
A total of 66 species, belonging to 44 genera and 29 botanical families, were evaluated. Regarding life forms, most species studied were trees (57.58%), followed by small trees (25.76%), shrubs (15.15%), and sub-shrubs (1.51%) (Table
Plant species abundances, life form, fruit type, and pollination and dispersion syndromes at the five fragments of Cerrado Rupestre immersed in an agricultural landscape in Rio Paranaíba, Minas Gerais. N° ind.: number of individuals; cantharophily: beetle pollination; generalist: pollination by many groups of pollinators; melittophily: bee pollination; ornithophily: bird pollination; phalenophily: moth pollination; psychophilly: butterfly pollination; quiropterophilly: bat pollination; sphingophily: hawk moth pollination; anemochory: wind dispersal; autochory: dispersion carried out by the plant itself; zoochory: animal dispersal.
Family/Species | Fragments (n° ind.) | Life form | Fruit | Pollination | Dispersion | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | |||||
Annonaceae | ||||||||||
Annona coriacea Mart. | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 10 | tree | fleshy | cantharophily | zoochory |
Xylopia sericea A.St.-Hil | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 21 | tree | fleshy | cantharophily | zoochory |
Apocynaceae | ||||||||||
Hancornia speciosa Gomes | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 14 | tree | fleshy | sphingophily | zoochory |
Aspidosperma tomentosum Mart. | 1 | 12 | 13 | 17 | 22 | 65 | tree | dry | phalenophily | anemochory |
Asteraceae | ||||||||||
Piptocarpha rotundifolia (Less.) Baker | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | subtree | dry | psychophily | anemochory |
Bignoniaceae | ||||||||||
Handroanthus ochraceus (Cham.) Mattos | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Calophyllaceae | ||||||||||
Kielmeyera petiolaris Mart. | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 28 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Caryocaraceae | ||||||||||
Caryocar brasiliense Cambess. | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | tree | fleshy | quiropterophilly | zoochory |
Celastraceae | ||||||||||
Plenckia populnea Reissek | 18 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 18 | 43 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Chrysobalanaceae | ||||||||||
Couepia grandiflora (Mart. & Zucc.) Benth. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | tree | fleshy | phalenophily | zoochory |
Combretaceae | ||||||||||
Terminalia argentea Mart. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | tree | dry | generalist | anemochory |
Connaraceae | ||||||||||
Connarus suberosus Planch. | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Erythroxylaceae | ||||||||||
Erythroxylum campestre A.St.-Hil. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | subshrub | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Erythroxylum daphnites Mart. | 78 | 35 | 30 | 38 | 10 | 191 | subtree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Erythroxylum tortuosum Mart. | 13 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 34 | subtree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Erythroxylum sp. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Euphorbiaceae | ||||||||||
Pera glabrata (Schott) Poepp. ex Baill. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Fabaceae | ||||||||||
Dalbergia miscolobium Benth. | 41 | 106 | 92 | 35 | 89 | 363 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Enterolobium gummiferum (Mart.) J.F.Macbr. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | dry | melittophily | zoochory |
Fabaceae sp. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Machaerium villosum Vogel | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Machaerium opacum | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Machaerium sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Stryphnodendron adstringens (Mart.) Coville | 8 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 18 | tree | dry | generalist | zoochory |
Lamiaceae | ||||||||||
Aegiphila lhotzkiana Cham. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Lythraceae | ||||||||||
Lafoensia pacari A.St.-Hil. | 22 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 36 | tree | dry | quiropterophilly | anemochory |
Malpighiaceae | ||||||||||
Banisteriopsis sp. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | shrub | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Banisteriopsis malifolia (Nees & Mart.) B.Gates | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 14 | shrub | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Byrsonima coccolobifolia Kunth | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) Kunth | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Byrsonima verbascifolia (L.) DC. | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 9 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Heteropterys byrsonimifolia A.Juss. | 0 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 20 | shrub | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Byrsonima sp. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | shrub | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Melastomataceae | ||||||||||
Miconia albicans (Sw.) Triana | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 15 | shrub | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Miconia sp. 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | shrub | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Miconia sp. 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | shrub | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Meliaceae | ||||||||||
Cabralea canjerana (Vell.) Mart. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | tree | fleshy | phalenophily | zoochory |
Myristicaceae | ||||||||||
Virola sebifera Aubl. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 12 | 28 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Myrtaceae | ||||||||||
Blepharocalyx salicifolius (Kunth) O.Berg | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Eugenia sp. 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Eugenia sp. 2 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 19 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrcia lingua (O.Berg) Mattos | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrcia splendens (Sw.) DC. | 4 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 18 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrcia variabilis DC. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrcia sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrtaceae sp. 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrtaceae sp. 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Myrtaceae sp. 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Psidium pohlianum O. Berg | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Nyctaginaceae | ||||||||||
Guapira noxia (Netto) Lundell | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Neea theifera Oerst. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Ochnaceae | ||||||||||
Ouratea castaneifolia (DC.) Engl. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | subtree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Proteaceae | ||||||||||
Roupala montana Aubl. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | dry | phalenophily | anemochory |
Rubiaceae | ||||||||||
Palicourea rigida Kunth | 14 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 21 | shrub | fleshy | ornithophily | zoochory |
Rudgea viburnoides (Cham.) Benth. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Tocoyena formosa (Cham. & Schltdl.) Schum. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | shrub | fleshy | sphingophily | zoochory |
Rutaceae | ||||||||||
Spiranthera odoratissima A.St.-Hil. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | tree | dry | phalenophily | autochory |
Zanthoxylum riedelianum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Sapotaceae | ||||||||||
Pouteria ramiflora (Mart.) Radlk. | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Pouteria torta (Mart.) Radlk. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 | tree | fleshy | generalist | zoochory |
Solanaceae | ||||||||||
Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | shrub | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Styracaceae | ||||||||||
Styrax ferrugineus Nees & Mart. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 15 | tree | fleshy | melittophily | zoochory |
Vochysiaceae | ||||||||||
Qualea grandiflora Mart. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | tree | dry | phalenophily | anemochory |
Qualea multiflora Mart. | 39 | 17 | 46 | 10 | 15 | 127 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Qualea parviflora Mart. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | tree | dry | melittophily | anemochory |
Vochysia thyrsoidea Pohl | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | tree | dry | ornithophily | anemochory |
In all life forms, melittophily was the predominant mode of pollination, occurring in 42.11% of trees, 80.00% of shrubs, and 70.59% of small trees. The only sub-shrubs species was melitophilous (Table
Melittophily was the most common type of pollination syndrome, observed in 54.55% of the species, followed by phalenophily (9.09%), cantharophily, ornithophily, quiropterophilly and sphingophily (all 3.03%), and psychophilly (1.51%). Generalist pollination represented 22.73% of the records (Fig.
Frequency of pollination (A) and dispersal (B) syndromes between plant species and individuals (C and D, respectively) found in the five fragments of Cerrado Rupestre immersed in an agricultural landscape in Rio Paranaíba, Minas Gerais. A: Cant = Cantharophily, Orni = Ornithophily, Quir = Quiropterophilly, Sphy = Sphingophily, Psy = Psychophily (1.51%). C: P = Psychophily (0.16%). D: Green frame = Authocory (1.52%). Cantharophily: beetle pollination; generalist: pollination by many groups of pollinators; melittophily: bee pollination; ornithophily: bird pollination; phalenophily: moth pollination; psychophilly: butterfly pollination; quiropterophilly: bat pollination; sphingophily: hawk moth pollination; anemochory: wind dispersal; autochory: dispersion carried out by the plant itself; zoochory: animal dispersal.
The frequency of pollination syndromes among individuals differed from the values found for frequency among species. Of the 1246 individuals identified, 59.23% were melitophilous, 25.20% generalists, 5.86% phalenophilous, 3.37% quiropterophilous, 2.49% cantharophilous, 2.25% ornithophilous, 1.44% sphingophilous and 0.16% psychophilous (Fig.
In all life forms, zoochory was the predominant dispersal syndrome, occurring in 55.26% of trees, 70.00% of shrubs, and 94.12% of small trees. The only subshrub species was zoochoric. Among the 66 species sampled in the Cerrado Rupestre, 44 species (66.67%) had fleshy fruits, all zoochorous, and 22 species (33.33%) had dry fruits. Species with dry fruits are predominantly anemochoric or autochoric, except for Enterolobium gummiferum (Fabales, Fabaceae), which is zoochoric (Table
Zoochory was the most common type of dispersion, observed in 68.18% of the species, followed by anemochory (28.79%) and autochory (3.03%) (Fig.
The frequency of dispersion syndromes among individuals differed from the values found for frequency among species. Of the 1246 individuals identified, 55.38% were anemochoric, 43.10% zoochoric and 1.52% autochoric (Fig.
Dalbergia miscolobium, melitophilous and anemochoric, was the most abundant plant species with 363 individuals, followed by Erythroxyllum daphnitis (Malpighiales, Erythroxylaceae) (generalist and zoochoric pollination, n = 191) and Qualea multiflora (Myrtales, Vochysiaceae) (melitophilous and anemochoric, n = 127). Regarding the five fragments, Dalbergia miscolobium (Fabales, Fabaceae) was the most abundant species in fragments 2, 3, and 5, while E. daphnitis was the most abundant in fragments 1 and 4, in addition to being the most frequent zoochoric species in the Cerrado Rupestre of Rio Paranaíba (Table
Our results demonstrate the predominance of biotic syndromes in the community, especially melittophily and zoochory, while most individuals, corresponding to species with high dominance, characterize the typical pattern of the predominance of anemochory in this vegetation.
Pollination systems encompassed several groups of animals, being represented by more frequent and less frequent syndromes in these environments. The Cerrado Rupestre studied has a higher frequency of species and individuals potentially pollinated by bees, highlighting the importance of this group of pollinators in the fruiting of most species studied. Bees pollinate about 70% of plants in the Cerrado (
The other entomophilic syndromes were less expressive, but many plant species presented a generalized pollination system since their flowers can be pollinated by different generalist pollinators. Even when they are not the main food sources for these insects, the resources offered by these plants can be vital for the persistence of populations of these pollinators in the absence of other sources (
On plant communities in the Cerrado, ornithophily and quiropterophilly represent less than 5% of all angiosperm species (
Ornithophily (Bird pollination) and zoochory (animal dispersal) records in the Rupestre Cerrado of Rio Paranaíba, Minas Gerais, Brazil. (A) Heliomaster squamosus (Apodiformes, Trochilidae) hummingbird with a beak full of nectar, pollinating a Palicourea rigida (Gentianales, Rubiaceae) individual. (B) Turdus amaurochalinus (Passeriformes, Turdidae) individual consuming Erythroxylum suberosum (Malpighiales, Erythroxylaceae) fruit. Photo credit: Cássio Cardoso Pereira.
Regarding the dispersion of diaspores, our results also suggest the importance of fauna for maintaining the diversity of this community, with a predominance of zoochoric species. The highest frequency of zoochoric species observed in the present study (69.6%) was also found in studies carried out in savanna environments (
The predominance of zoochory may indicate the importance of fauna for plant species in this community. One of the hypotheses to explain the advantages of dispersal by animals is that of colonization and directed dispersal, that is, zoochory allows for the dispersal of larger seeds and, at the same time, it may be more effective than anemochory (
Fleshy fruits, such as berries and drupes (e.g., E. daphnitis, second most abundant species in the study, N = 191), are often edible and therefore highly attractive, especially for birds (Fig.
On the other hand, when analyzing the frequency of syndromes among individuals, the predominance of anemochory in the Cerrado Rupestre fragments demonstrates the expected pattern for a seasonal and open environment (
The variety of flowers and the availability of fruits in the Cerrado Rupestre, mainly zoochorous, indicate the need for preservation and studies on the degree of dependence of these plants on these animals. Thus, an important next step to be taken is to know the identity of these pollinators and dispersers to understand the role of animal species in the structure of these plant communities (
Anthropogenic pressure on this vegetation is the main threat to pollination and dispersal interactions. Despite the risk, the conservation and management of these fragments can contribute to the maintenance of pollination and dispersal services in the cerrados immersed in agricultural landscapes. Thus, this study provides important data on pollination and dispersal services associated with the Cerrado Rupestre and contributes to a better understanding of the functionality and availability of resources in the community, providing indispensable information for the conservation, management, and restoration of natural environments.
The authors would like to thank UFV, UFMG and CAPES for their continuous support. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.