Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 2;5(9):1794–1801. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1469

Table 3.

Comparison of median predicted dispersal distances (m) from the bootstrapped LMM model presented in this study and distance predicted from the ballistic model when released from a height of 30 m and wind speed of 1.72 m/sec

Species Mean IWL (cm2/g) (Wing loading)1/2* Predicted distance dispersed (m)
LMM model Ballistic model
Dipterocarpus humeratus 9.29 (± 0.27) 326.37 4.25 21.93
Dipterocarpus kerrii 8.93 (± 0.47) 346.34 3.90 20.54
Hopea beccariana 26.39 (± 0.83) 189.54 5.30 40.45
Shorea acuminatissima 17.37 (± 0.75) 231.89 4.13 32.07
Shorea argentifolia 44.60 (± 1.86) 147.71 7.90 54.53
Shorea beccariana 21.55 (± 0.45) 207.50 5.86 36.42
Shorea falciferoides 24.85 (± 1.03) 199.76 5.31 38.05
Shorea gibbosa 11.53 (± 0.58) 292.07 3.08 24.78
Shorea macroptera 39.83 (± 1.98) 162.65 6.70 48.50
Shorea mexistopteryx 16.49 (± 0.73) 242.07 5.48 30.55
Shorea seminis 1.97 (± 0.14) 724.03 2.27 9.41
Shorea smithiana 20.95 (± 0.65) 212.99 5.18 35.34
Shorea xanthophylla 0.00 (± 0.00) 0.00 1.76 NA
*

Mean IWL (cm2/g) was converted to (wing loading)1/2 (in unit millidynes cm2) by first converting fruit mass (g) to millidynes and dividing by wing area (cm2), before square-rooting this value.

The rate of descent Vt per species was calculated from the regression fitted values from “helicopter” fruit class from Table3 in Augspurger (1986).