4.6 Article

Niche partitioning and the role of intraspecific niche variation in structuring a guild of generalist anurans

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170060

关键词

coexistence; frogs; intra-population niche variation; individual specialization; niche partitioning; toads

资金

  1. University of Louisville School of Arts and Sciences Research Initiation Grant [50874]
  2. Kentucky Society for Natural History Woody Boebinger Memorial Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intra-population niche differences in generalist foragers have captured the interest of ecologists, because such individuality can have important ecological and evolutionary implications. Few researchers have investigated how these differences affect the relationships among ecologically similar, sympatric species. Using stable isotopes, stomach contents, morphology and habitat preference, we examined niche partitioning within a group of five anurans and determined whether variation within species could facilitate resource partitioning. Species partitioned their niches by trophic level and by foraging habitat. However, there was considerable intraspecific variation in trophic level, with larger individuals generally feeding at higher trophic levels. For species at intermediate trophic levels, smaller individuals overlapped in trophic level with individuals of smaller species and larger individuals overlapped with the smallest individuals from larger species. Species varied in carbon isotopes; species with enriched carbon isotope ratios foraged farther from ponds, whereas species with depleted carbon isotope values foraged closer to ponds. Our study shows that these species partition their niches by feeding at different trophic levels and foraging at different distances from ponds. The intraspecific variation in trophic level decreased the number of individuals from each species that overlapped in trophic level with individuals from other species, which can facilitate species coexistence.

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

4.6
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