The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fruit‐Size, Gape Width, and the Diets of Fruit‐Eating Birds
Abstract
In most animals, especially those that must swallow food items whole, prey size is related to predator size. This paper examines gape limitation and the influence of fruit size on diet in fruit—eating birds, drawing on data gathered over a 5—yr period on 70 bird species and 171 plant species in the lower montane forests of Monteverde, Costa Rica. The results suggest that fruit—eating birds face many of the constraints imposed on other gape—limited foragers, but have an unusual minimum—size relationship with their food because of the unique characteristics of fruits. Fruit—eating birds with broad gapes consumed more lauraceous fruit species and a larger mean and maximum size of fruits overall than narrow—gaped birds. However, the size of the smallest fruits eaten was not correlated with gape width; large—gaped species commonly fed on diminutive fruits. Birds effectively selected among individual fruits within a tree on the basis of fruit size, dropping bulky fruits beneath the tree. Effective size selectivity also occurred among trees of different species in the same family and among plant species in various families. The diet of broad—gaped birds was not comprised differentially of large fruit species. For example, Three—wattled Bellbirds favored medium—sized fruits, whereas Long—tailed Manakins took individual fruits in the same proportions as they took fruit species of different mean fruit diameters. Gape limitations and effective size selectivity have obvious consequences for seed dispersal patterns: Plants with large fruits attracted fewer species of birds than plants with small fruits. Moreover, the broad—gaped bird species on which large—fruited plants specialized were those with the most generalized diets.
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
Peres, C. A., & Palacios, E. (2007) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00272.x · Cited by 1,383
Functional Extinction of Birds Drives Rapid Evolutionary Changes in Seed Size
Galetti, M., Guevara, R., Côrtes, M. C., Fadini, R., Von Matter, S., Leite, A. B., Labecca, F., Ribeiro, T., Carvalho, C. S., Collevatti, R. G., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1233774 · Cited by 768
Ecological and evolutionary legacy of megafauna extinctions
Galetti, M., Moleón, M., Jordano, P., Pires, M. M., Guimarães, P. R., Pape, T., Nichols, E., Hansen, D., Olesen, J. M., Munk, M., et al. (2018) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12374 · Cited by 274
Nuñez‐Iturri, G., & Howe, H. F. (2007) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00276.x · Cited by 166
‘Nucleating’ succession in recovering neotropical wet forests: the legacy of remnant trees.
Schlawin, J. R., & Zahawi, R. A. (2008) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.3170/2008-8-18387 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Wheelwright, N. T.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1985-06
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 808-818
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2085752877
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Fruit‐Size, Gape Width, and the Diets of Fruit‐Eating Birds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940542
- The paper
- Wheelwright, N. T. (1985). Fruit‐Size, Gape Width, and the Diets of Fruit‐Eating Birds. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940542
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.