Preliminary diet record of hinge‐back tortoise Kinixys zombensis : A potential seed disperser?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle J. Lloyd ◽  
Daniel M. Parker
Keyword(s):  

Biotropica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abir Jain ◽  
Navendu V. Page ◽  
Gopal S. Rawat ◽  
Rohit Naniwadekar


Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany J. Morison ◽  
Anne-Louise M. Heath ◽  
Jillian J. Haszard ◽  
Karen Hein ◽  
Elizabeth A. Fleming ◽  
...  

The aim of this study was to determine whether food variety and perceived food preferences differ in infants following baby-led instead of traditional spoon-feeding approaches to introducing solids. A total of 206 women (41.3% primiparous) were recruited in late pregnancy from a single maternity hospital (response rate 23.4%) and randomized to Control (n = 101) or BLISS (n = 105) groups. All participants received government-funded Well Child care. BLISS participants also received support to exclusively breastfeed to 6 months and three educational sessions on BLISS (Baby-Led Weaning, modified to reduce the risk of iron deficiency, growth faltering, and choking) at 5.5, 7, and 9 months. Food variety was calculated from three-day weighed diet records at 7, 12, and 24 months. Questionnaires assessed infant preference for different tastes and textures at 12 months, and for ‘vegetables’, ‘fruit’, ‘meat and fish’, or ‘desserts’ at 24 months. At 24 months, 50.5% of participants provided diet record data, and 78.2% provided food preference data. BLISS participants had greater variety in ‘core’ (difference in counts over three days, 95% CI: 1.3, 0.4 to 2.2), ‘non-core’ (0.6, 0.2 to 0.9), and ‘meat and other protein’ (1.3, 0.8 to 1.9) foods at 7 months, and in ‘fruit and vegetable’ foods at 24 months (2, 0.4 to 3.6). The only differences in perceived food preferences observed were very small (i.e., <5% difference in score, at 12 months only). Infants following the modified Baby-Led Weaning were exposed to more varied and textured foods from an early age, but only an increased variety in ‘fruit and vegetable’ intake was apparent by two years of age.



PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. e0170188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susana Patricia Bravo ◽  
Victor Rodolfo Cueto ◽  
Cristian Andrés Gorosito


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Murphy ◽  
Kay Howard ◽  
Giles E. St J. Hardy ◽  
Bernard Dell

To regenerate sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) stands in south-western Australia it is necessary to understand the complex relationship between woylies (Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi) and sandalwood. Sandalwood requires a seed disperser for successful recruitment and in the past the critically endangered woylie played an important role in dispersing and caching seeds, but it is not clear whether this mutualistic and antagonistic relationship is beneficial to regeneration efforts. An enclosure in a woodland and 46Scandium-labelled seeds, enabled study of the in situ predation of seeds, caching, the fate of cached seeds, the detection of cached seeds and predation of germinated seeds. Woylies preferentially cached sandalwood, then S. acuminatum seeds, before any interest was shown in Acacia acuminata and Gastrolobium microcarpum seeds, which were virtually all eaten in situ. Of a further 500 radiolabelled and individually numbered sandalwood seeds deployed, 42.2% were eaten in situ, 20.8% had an unknown fate and 37% were cached, with some seeds being recached up to four times. After nine months, only four cached seeds remained undisturbed. Olfaction appeared to be the primary method of cache detection. To examine the recruitment rate of cached seeds, the fate of 89 transplanted sandalwood seedlings at two study sites was followed. After one month 38% were intact and growing, but half of the transplanted seedlings were dug up and the remaining endosperm was eaten in situ or taken away. The results highlight the potential of providing seed supplies, including sandalwood seeds and seeds of their hosts, to seed-dispersal marsupials for passive ecosystem repair.



2015 ◽  
Vol 103 (6) ◽  
pp. 1475-1486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ainhoa Magrach ◽  
Javier Rodríguez-Pérez ◽  
Martín Piazzon ◽  
Luis Santamaría


1990 ◽  
Vol 90 (10) ◽  
pp. 1431-1433
Author(s):  
Ethan A. Bergman ◽  
Janice C. Boyungs ◽  
Marilee L. Erickson


Tropics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (2/3) ◽  
pp. 233-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takakazu YUMOTO ◽  
Juichi YAMAGIWA ◽  
Kazuo ASAOKA ◽  
Tamaki MARUHASHI ◽  
Ndunda MWANZA
Keyword(s):  


2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Ferreira Fadini ◽  
Danielly Caroline Miléo Gonçalves ◽  
Rúbia Patrícia Fernandes Reis

The present paper describes the spatial distribution of the mistletoe Psittacanthus plagiophyllus Eichl. (Loranthaceae) on its host, the cashew tree Anacardium occidentale L., in a Brazilian Amazonian savanna. Our aim was to understand the roles of bird-seed dispersers and host quality in determining the mistletoe distribution among its host trees. In 2006, we marked 118 cashews in a 4.5-ha plot and counted the number of mistletoes and the presence of seeds attached to host branches in 2006, 2007 and 2008. On average, 36% of the hosts were infected each year. The infection load and the probability of being infected increased significantly with host crown diameter. On average, 25% of the hosts received at least one mistletoe seed in each year, being taller and previously infected hosts more prone to receive seeds in all 3 years. Elaenia cristata was the main seed disperser, visiting P. plagiophyllus 48 times in 35 h of focal records. Additionally, in a field experiment, we used the presence of an infection and the host size as surrogates for host quality and tested their effect on mistletoe survivorship. After 9 months, 16.5% of seeds survived and 14% had established, but neither host conditions nor host size influenced seed survivorship. Therefore, we suggest that mistletoe distribution is a consequence of a consistent dispersal of seeds onto larger and previously parasitised hosts across years.



Oikos ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio M. Alcántara ◽  
Pedro J. Rey ◽  
Alfonso M. Sánchez-Lafuente ◽  
Francisco Valera


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document