4.0 Article

Food resource partitioning in syntopic nectarivorous bats on Puerto Rico

期刊

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 359-369

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467414000145

关键词

Carbon-13; Erophylla bombifrons; frugivory; insectivory; Monophyllus redmani; nectarivory; nitrogen-15; stable isotope

类别

资金

  1. Meta Hellwig Graduate Research Award
  2. Graduate School, Eastern Michigan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the dietary needs of syntopic species is essential for examining species coexistence and resource partitioning. We analysed stable isotopes of carbon (delta C-13) and nitrogen (delta N-15) to estimate the diet of two putative nectarivorous bats on Puerto Rico, the brown flower bat (Erophylla bombifrons) and the Greater Antillean long-tongued bat (Monophyllus redmani). Isotopic ratios of delta C-13 and delta N-15 were obtained from whole blood of both species of bat and tissues of available plant foods and insect prey over 15 wk at the same locality. We used a concentration-dependent Bayesian mixing model to determine probability distributions of feasible dietary contributions for major potential foods used by each species of bat. Additionally, separate dietary estimates were conducted for males and non-reproductive, pregnant and lactating females to determine differences due to reproductive condition. Insects were an important source of protein for M. redmani, whereas E. bombifrons obtained most of its protein from plants. In both species of bat, lactating females had lower assimilated nitrogen than males, suggesting more reliance on plants for protein. We observed no intraspecific differences in assimilated carbon among reproductive conditions. Flight and lactation are energetically expensive and may explain the increased consumption of high-energy foods, such as fruit or nectar, in lactating female bats. Comparison of isotopes between E. bombifrons and M. redmani illustrate the differential use of food resources by these insular syntopic species of bat.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据