IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v15y2004i4p666-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Substrate type affects caching and pilferage of pine seeds by chipmunks

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer S. Briggs
  • Stephen B. Vander Wall

Abstract

The abiotic environment often influences the ways in which animals interact. By affecting the cues associated with buried seeds, the type of substrate used by seed-caching rodents may alter the relative probabilities of cache pilferage and cache retrieval. We predicted that, after a wildfire, the presence of ash would impair rodents' ability to smell pine seeds on the forest floor. In a laboratory experiment, we compared the foraging success, caching frequency, and cache recovery of chipmunks (six Tamias amoenus and six T. quadrimaculatus) in ash versus sand substrates. Initial results supported our hypothesis: chipmunks found only 2.3% of 108 caches of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds that we buried in ash but found 98% of caches in sand. However, chipmunks made as many or more of their own caches in ash compared with sand (48% for T. amoenus, 73% for T. quadrimaculatus.) When foraging for seeds cached in ash by themselves and by other individuals, they found significantly higher proportions of their own caches (62%) than of caches made by others (25%). However, when foraging in sand, they found high proportions both of their own caches and those of others (86 versus 81%). These results suggest that olfaction is less effective in ash than in sand, that spatial memory enables chipmunks to recover their own caches in ash, and that caching in ash may allow animals to avoid pilferage of stored food. As chipmunks are important dispersers of seeds, changes in their foraging patterns or competitive interactions after fire could significantly affect pine regeneration. Copyright 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer S. Briggs & Stephen B. Vander Wall, 2004. "Substrate type affects caching and pilferage of pine seeds by chipmunks," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(4), pages 666-672, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:666-672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh060
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:666-672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.