Skip to main content
Log in

Differential predation on mangrove propagules in open and closed canopy forest habitats

  • Published:
Vegetatio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Amounts of seed predation by grapsid crabs (Brachyura: Grapsidae) on two species of mangroves (Aegiceras corniculatum and Avicennia marina) were compared among different habitats in an Australian mangrove forest. For Avicennia, comparisons were between canopy gaps and the adjacent forest understory for six, mid intertidal, gaps of different sizes. For Aegiceras the comparisons were among canopy gaps in the high intertidal; open, accreting mud/sand banks where mangroves were colonizing in the low intertidal; and in the forest understory in both the high and low intertidal zones. These were repeated in the high salinity (35\%) downstream portion and the low salinity (0–5\%) upstream portion of a tidal river.

Predation on Avicennia was significantly higher in the understory than in adjacent canopy gaps. Within a canopy opening, predation was greatest in the smallest gaps and lowest in the largest gaps. Predation on Aegiceras was greater in the high intertidal compared to the low intertidal, but no differences were found between river mouth and upstream locations. In the high intertidal zone of the forest, there were no differences in predation between canopy gap or forest understory sites for Aegiceras. In the low intertidal zone, however, significant differences in amount of predation were found between habitats. More Aegiceras propagules were consumed in the understory than on adjacent accreting sandbanks.

Frequency of tidal inundation, which in turn affects the amount of time available to forage, is hypothesized to account for differences in predation between low and high intertidal forests and between small and large canopy gaps. Our results also suggest that ‘shade intolerance’ in these two species may actually reflect an escape from predators, successful when the seeds are dispersed into open areas such as canopy gaps or mud banks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Augspruger C. K. 1984. Seedling survival among tropical tree species: interactions of dispersal distance, lightgaps and pathogens. Ecology 65: 1705–1712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augspruger C. K. & Kelly C. K. 1984. Pathogen mortality of tropical tree seedlings: Experimental studies of the effects of dispersal distance, seedling density and light conditions. Oecologia 61: 211–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie P. 1982. A preliminary checklist of the Brachyura (Crestacea: Decapoda) associated with Australian mangrove forests. Operculum 5: 204–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denslow J. S. 1987. Tropical rainforest gaps and tree species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. & Syst. 18: 431–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frith D. W., Tantanasiriwong R. & Bhatia O. 1976. Zonation of macrofauna on a mangrove shore. Research Bulletin i0. Phuket Marine Biological Center, Phuket, Thailand. 37 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartnoll R. G. 1975. The Grapsidae and Ocypodidae (Decapoda: Brachyura) of Tanzania. J. Zool. (London) 177: 305–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones D. A. 1984. Crabs of the mangal ecosystem. In: Por F. D. & Dor I. (eds), Hydrobiology of the mangal. pp. 89–109, Dr. W. Junk Publ. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, K. 1988. A distribution study of the mangrove, Aegiceras corniculatum (L.) Blanco, in some Northern Australian estuaries. B.Sc. Honours Thesis. Dept. of Geography, James Cook University of North Queensland. Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

  • Poole R. W. 1974. An introduction to quantitative ecology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saenger P. 1982. Morphological, physiological and reproductive adaptations of Australian mangroves. In: Clough B. F. (ed), Mangrove ecosystems in Australia. pp. 153–192. Australian National University Press, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasekumar A. 1974. Distribution of macrofauna on a Malayan mangrove shore. J. Anim. Ecol. 43: 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasekumar A., Ong T. L. & Thong K. L. 1984. Predation of mangrove fauna by fishes. In: Soepadmo E., Rao A. N. & MacIntosh D. J. (eds), Proceedings of the Asian Symposium on Mangrove Environments: Research & Management. pp. 378–384, Percetakan Ardyas Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schupp E. W. 1988a. Factors affecting post-dispersal seed survival in a tropical forest. Oecologia (Berlin) 76: 525–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schupp E. W. 1988b. Seed and early seedling predation in the forest understory and in treefall gaps. Oikos 51: 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schupp E. W. & Frost E. J. (1989) Differential predation of Welfia georgii seeds in treefall gaps and the forest understory. Biotropica 21: 200–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. J.III. 1987a. Seed predation in relation to tree dominance and distribution in mangrove forests. Ecology 68: 266–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. J.III. 1987b. Effects of seed predators and light level on the distribution of Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. in tropical, tidal forests. Est. Coast. & Shelf Sci. 25: 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. J.III. 1987c. Effects of light and intertidal position on seedling survival and growth in tropical, tidal forests. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. & Ecol. 110: 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. J.III. 1988. The influence of seed predators on structure and succession in tropical, tidal forests. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Australia 15: 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T. J.III, Chan H.-T., McIvor C. C. & Robblee M. B. 1989. Comparisons of seed predation in mangrove forests from three continents. Ecology 70: 146–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedaker S. C. & Lahmann E. J. 1988. An alternative explanation for the lack of a mangrove understory. J. Trop. Ecol. 4: 411–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelling B. 1959. The distribution of intertidal crabs in the Brisbane River. Australian J. Mar. & Freshw. Res. 10: 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel R. G. D. & Torrie J. H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thong K. L. & Sasekumar A. 1984. The trophic relationships of the fish community of the Angsa Bank, Selangor, Malaysia. In: Soepadmo E., Rao A. N. & MacIntosh D. J. (eds), pp. 385–399. Proceedings of the Asian Symposium on Mangrove Environments: Research & Management. Percetakan Ardyas Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson P. B. 1986. The botany of mangroves. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. 413 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner G. F. 1969. The occurrence and distribution of crabs in a Jamaican mangrove swamp. J. Anim. Ecol. 38: 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson J. G. 1928. Mangrove forests of the Malay peninsula. Malayan Forest Records 6: 1–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson M. F. 1988. Spatial heterogeneity of post-dispersal survivorship of Queensland rainforest seeds. Australian J. Ecol. 13: 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson K. A. 1989. Ecology of mangrove crabs: predation, physical factors and refuges. Bulletin of Marine Science 44: 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Osborne, K., Smith, T.J. Differential predation on mangrove propagules in open and closed canopy forest habitats. Vegetatio 89, 1–6 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134429

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134429

Keywords

Navigation