The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fig‐eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review
Open accessAbstract
The consumption of figs (the fruit of Ficus spp.; Moraceae) by vertebrates is reviewed using data from the literature, unpublished accounts and new field data from Borneo and Hong Kong. Records of frugivory from over 75 countries are presented for 260 Ficus species (approximately 30% of described species). Explanations are presented for geographical and taxonomic gaps in the otherwise extensive literature. In addition to a small number of reptiles and fishes, 1274 bird and mammal species in 523 genera and 92 families are known to eat figs. In terms of the number of species and genera of fig‐eaters and the number of fig species eaten we identify the avian families interacting most with Ficus to be Columbidae, Psittacidae, Pycnonotidae, Bucerotidae, Sturnidae and Lybiidae. Among mammals, the major fig‐eating families are Pteropodidae, Cercopithecidae, Sciuridae, Phyllostomidae and Cebidae. We assess the role these and other frugivores play in Ficus seed dispersal and identify fig‐specialists. In most, but not all, cases fig specialists provide effective seed dispersal services to the Ficus species on which they feed. The diversity of fig‐eaters is explained with respect to fig design and nutrient content, phenology of fig ripening and the diversity of fig presentation. Whilst at a gross level there exists considerable overlap between birds, arboreal mammals and fruit bats with regard to the fig species they consume, closer analysis, based on evidence from across the tropics, suggests that discrete guilds of Ficus species differentially attract subsets of sympatric frugivore communities. This dispersal guild structure is determined by interspecific differences in fig design and presentation. Throughout our examination of the fig‐frugivore interaction we consider phylogenetic factors and make comparisons between large‐scale biogeographical regions. Our dataset supports previous claims that Ficus is the most important plant genus for tropical frugivores. We explore the concept of figs as keystone resources and suggest criteria for future investigations of their dietary importance. Finally, fully referenced lists of frugivores recorded at each Ficus species and of Ficus species in the diet of each frugivore are presented as online appendices. In situations where ecological information is incomplete or its retrieval is impractical, this valuable resource will assist conservationists in evaluating the role of figs or their frugivores in tropical forest sites.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nuñez‐Iturri, G., & Howe, H. F. (2007) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00276.x · Cited by 166
Bird-mediated seed dispersal and the decline and regeneration of fleshy-fruited forests: a review
Catterall, C. P. (2026) · Emu - Austral Ornithology · doi:10.1080/01584197.2026.2701755
Metadata
- Authors
- SHANAHAN, M., SO, S., GOMPTON, S. G., & GORLETT, R.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 529-572
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2156447469
- Cited by
- 546
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fig‐eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1464793101005760
- The paper
- SHANAHAN, M., SO, S., GOMPTON, S. G., & GORLETT, R. (2001). Fig‐eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793101005760
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.