Click
here to close Hello! We notice that
you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Echinobase
and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a
current version of Chrome,
FireFox,
or Safari.
Front Zool
2012 Nov 13;91:30. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-9-30.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
What mechanism of niche segregation allows the coexistence of sympatric sibling rhinolophid bats?
Salsamendi E
,
Garin I
,
Arostegui I
,
Goiti U
,
Aihartza J
.
Abstract
UNLABELLED:
INTRODUCTION: Our purpose was to assess how pairs of sibling horseshoe bats coexists when their morphology and echolocation are almost identical. We collected data on echolocation, wing morphology, diet, and habitat use of sympatric Rhinolophus mehelyi and R. euryale. We compared our results with literature data collected in allopatry with similar protocols and at the same time of the year (breeding season).
RESULTS: Echolocation frequencies recorded in sympatry for R. mehelyi (mean = 106.8 kHz) and R. euryale (105.1 kHz) were similar to those reported in allopatry (R. mehelyi 105-111 kHz; R. euryale 101-109 kHz). Wing parameters were larger in R. mehelyi than R. euryale for both sympatric and allopatric conditions. Moths constitute the bulk of the diet of both species in sympatry and allopatry, with minor variation in the amounts of other prey. There were no inter-specific differences in the use of foraging habitats in allopatry in terms of structural complexity, however we found inter-specific differences between sympatric populations: R. mehelyi foraged in less complex habitats. The subtle inter-specific differences in echolocation frequency seems to be unlikely to facilitate dietary niche partitioning; overall divergences observed in diet may be explained as a consequence of differential prey availability among foraging habitats. Inter-specific differences in the use of foraging habitats in sympatry seems to be the main dimension for niche partitioning between R. mehelyi and R. euryale, probably due to letter differences in wing morphology.
CONCLUSIONS: Coexistence between sympatric sibling horseshoe bats is likely allowed by a displacement in spatial niche dimension, presumably due to the wing morphology of each species, and shifts the niche domains that minimise competition. Effective measures for conservation of sibling/similar horseshoe bats should guarantee structural diversity of foraging habitats.
Figure 1. Structural complexity of habitat types in sympatry. Mean values and 95% confidence intervals for canopy perimeter (left) and canopy cover (right) among habitat types in sympatric conditions. Habitat types are ranked from lowest to highest values of canopy perimeter and cover as surrogates for structural complexity. Different letters denote significant differences (Dunnett T3 post-hoc tests) between habitat types.
Figure 2. CART model for habitat use by R. mehelyi and R. euryale in sympatry. Classification and regression tree model for differential habitat use by R. mehelyi and R. euryale in sympatric conditions in Villuercas (Spain). The response variables are presence of R. mehelyi and R. euryale and the explanatory variables are habitat type, distance to water, canopy perimeter, and canopy cover. Top node represents training data set (60% of entire data set), non-terminal nodes represent data splits, and terminal nodes represent homogeneous classes. All nodes are labelled with their determining variable’s value/category and the number of foraging fixes for both species in each group (italicised and in brackets), as well as probability of finding a foraging R. mehelyi or R. euryale (in parentheses). An illustration of how to use the CART model: in any site where habitat type is dehesa, olive grove, or riparian forest (follow middle branch in the 1st node habitat type), if distance to water is more than 100 m (follow right branch in the 2nd node distance to water), the resulting probability of this site being used for foraging by R. mehelyi is 0.16, whereas the probability for R. euryale is 0.84.
Alberdi,
The foraging ecology of the mountain long-eared bat Plecotus macrobullaris revealed with DNA mini-barcodes.
2012, Pubmed
Alberdi,
The foraging ecology of the mountain long-eared bat Plecotus macrobullaris revealed with DNA mini-barcodes.
2012,
Pubmed
Barratt,
DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species.
1997,
Pubmed
Clare,
Eating local: influences of habitat on the diet of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus).
2011,
Pubmed
Jacobs,
The allometry of echolocation call frequencies of insectivorous bats: why do some species deviate from the pattern?
2007,
Pubmed
Jones,
Bimodal echolocation in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species present?
1993,
Pubmed
Leibold,
Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology.
2006,
Pubmed
Levine,
The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity.
2009,
Pubmed
Mayer,
Molecular species identification boosts bat diversity.
2007,
Pubmed
NULL,
Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching.
2000,
Pubmed
Rainho,
The importance of distance to resources in the spatial modelling of bat foraging habitat.
2011,
Pubmed
Siemers,
Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species.
2004,
Pubmed
Stoffberg,
Molecular phylogenetics and historical biogeography of Rhinolophus bats.
2010,
Pubmed
Surlykke,
Echolocation behavior of big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, in the field and the laboratory.
2000,
Pubmed
Voigt,
Perch-hunting in insectivorous Rhinolophus bats is related to the high energy costs of manoeuvring in flight.
2010,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
