3.9 Article

Ecological differences between two sympatric species of armadillos (Xenarthra, Mammalia) in a temperate region of Argentina

期刊

ACTA THERIOLOGICA
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 35-44

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.083.2008

关键词

character displacement; pampas grassland; diet; thermoregulation; habitat use

类别

资金

  1. CONICET
  2. Universidad Nacional de Lujan
  3. Idea Wild and Conservation International

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Morpho-physiological specialization related to foraging can act as constraints on behaviour and ecological patterns of abundance and distribution. We tested this prediction in two species (weeping or screaming hairy armadillos Chaetophractus vellerosus Gray, 1865 and mulitas Dasypus hybridus Desmarest, 1804) that represent the two subfamilies of armadillos (Dasypodidae, Xenarthra): Euphractinae and Dasypodinae. The first subfamily possesses a well-developed masticatory apparatus that is considered primitive within the Xenarthra, while Dasypodinae show reductions in various aspects of cranial morphology. We sampled signs (burrows and foraging holes) and captured both species on 34 farms randomly selected in the north-eastern Pampas region of Argentina. We analyzed several niche dimensions. The two species showed significant differences in habitat use, seasonal patterns and diet. Weeping armadillos were generalists in their diet and active throughout the year. They were associated with calcareous-sand soil, as expected for a burrowing animal of the deserts. They tolerated a wide range of environmental conditions. We found that mulitas are myrmecophagous, and that they demonstrated a reduction in body temperature and activity during the cold season. As expected from their geographical distribution, mulitas used mainly vegetation with high cover and were associated with humic soils. Niche segregation between the two species of armadillos appeared to originate from different degrees of dietary specialization.

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

3.9
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