Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species

Wing morphology and echolocation call design have been used to make predictions regarding habitat—use and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Species with very different morphologies and/or calls forage in different habitats or in different ways. However, bat communities contain many morpho...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology (Durham) 1992-08, Vol.73 (4), p.1335-1345
Hauptverfasser: Saunders, Matthew B., Robert M. R. Barclay
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1345
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1335
container_title Ecology (Durham)
container_volume 73
creator Saunders, Matthew B.
Robert M. R. Barclay
description Wing morphology and echolocation call design have been used to make predictions regarding habitat—use and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Species with very different morphologies and/or calls forage in different habitats or in different ways. However, bat communities contain many morphologically similar species, which would be predicted to overlap ecologically. We tested the reliability of such predictions and assumptions by investigating the habitat use and diet of two similar species, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the long—legged bat (Myotis volans), in southern Alberta, Canada. We recorded the echolocation calls of free—flying individuals and measured wing morphology. The echolocation calls of the two species overlapped in design, although on average the calls of M. volans were shorter and had higher maximum frequency than those of M. lucifugus. Both species had low wing loading and aspect ratio although M. lucifugus had significantly higher values than did M. volans and was thus expected to forage in areas with less environmental clutter. Field observations did not substantiate this, however. We assessed the foraging ecology of the bats by: (1) monitoring species—specific echolocation calls of free—flying individuals, (2) capturing bats in mist—nets set in various habitats, (3) observing the foraging behavior of light—tagged individuals, and (4) assessing the diet from fecal samples. There was no evidence of temporal partitioning of resources by the two species, but some spatial partitioning occurred. Although individuals of both species generally fed in open areas, M. lucifugus foraged primarily low over water while M. volans fed high above the ground and along cliff edges. Neither fed consistently in cluttered areas despite wing and echolocation call designs that should permit such behavior. Despite the overlap in foraging areas, the diets of the two species differed significantly. Myotis volans ate primarily lepidopterans while M. lucifugus ate a wider variety of prey, including dipterans, lepidopterans, and coleopterans. Our results suggest that there are several levels at which morphology influences the ecology of insectivorous bats. Large differences may influence foraging—habitat choice by restricting some species to certain habitats. At another level, however, we suggest that small differences influence prey availability rather than habitat availability. Bats may select habitats based on the distribution of suitable p
doi_str_mv 10.2307/1940680
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16343043</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1940680</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1940680</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3505-92c1567163528857d0e0302d4d767ba09984f5d8a48d0e780cbf1061cb90a6803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kl2LEzEUhoMoWOviTzCo6NXoOfmYJN6tperCigttL7wa0kympkwnNWld-u9NaVVY2M1NLt6HJ-cjhLxAeM84qA9oBNQaHpERGm4qgwoekxEAssrUUj8lz3JeQzko9Ii0Uxc3MW1_xj6uDjR29GrI3u3C75jiPtNPdpc_0ks693l3TG-Sb0OJ45DpIodhRee3kX77awjO9v2BzsIm9DbR2da74PNz8qSzffYX53tMFp-n88nX6vr7l6vJ5XXluARZGeZQ1gprLpnWUrXggQNrRatqtbRgjBadbLUVukRKg1t2CDW6pQFbWuZj8vbk3ab4a18qbjYhO9_3dvClmaaYBQfBC_jqDriO-zSU2hqGBhC0Odpe3wchM7VgUhbXmLw7US7FnJPvmm0KG5sODUJzXEhzXkgh35x9NpcxdckOLuR_uJQoDDti_ITdht4f7rM108kPNIYpLpBz-V--zruYHqjh5QnrbGzsKpX3FzMGWJfvoJiWjP8BIBap_g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>219010890</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species</title><source>JSTOR</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Saunders, Matthew B. ; Robert M. R. Barclay</creator><creatorcontrib>Saunders, Matthew B. ; Robert M. R. Barclay</creatorcontrib><description>Wing morphology and echolocation call design have been used to make predictions regarding habitat—use and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Species with very different morphologies and/or calls forage in different habitats or in different ways. However, bat communities contain many morphologically similar species, which would be predicted to overlap ecologically. We tested the reliability of such predictions and assumptions by investigating the habitat use and diet of two similar species, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the long—legged bat (Myotis volans), in southern Alberta, Canada. We recorded the echolocation calls of free—flying individuals and measured wing morphology. The echolocation calls of the two species overlapped in design, although on average the calls of M. volans were shorter and had higher maximum frequency than those of M. lucifugus. Both species had low wing loading and aspect ratio although M. lucifugus had significantly higher values than did M. volans and was thus expected to forage in areas with less environmental clutter. Field observations did not substantiate this, however. We assessed the foraging ecology of the bats by: (1) monitoring species—specific echolocation calls of free—flying individuals, (2) capturing bats in mist—nets set in various habitats, (3) observing the foraging behavior of light—tagged individuals, and (4) assessing the diet from fecal samples. There was no evidence of temporal partitioning of resources by the two species, but some spatial partitioning occurred. Although individuals of both species generally fed in open areas, M. lucifugus foraged primarily low over water while M. volans fed high above the ground and along cliff edges. Neither fed consistently in cluttered areas despite wing and echolocation call designs that should permit such behavior. Despite the overlap in foraging areas, the diets of the two species differed significantly. Myotis volans ate primarily lepidopterans while M. lucifugus ate a wider variety of prey, including dipterans, lepidopterans, and coleopterans. Our results suggest that there are several levels at which morphology influences the ecology of insectivorous bats. Large differences may influence foraging—habitat choice by restricting some species to certain habitats. At another level, however, we suggest that small differences influence prey availability rather than habitat availability. Bats may select habitats based on the distribution of suitable prey rather than due to direct limitations imposed by morphology or echolocation call design.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1940680</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECGYAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal behavior ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Autoecology ; Bats ; Biological and medical sciences ; Coulees ; Diet ; Ecology ; Foraging ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Insect ecology ; Insect morphology ; Mammalia ; Mammals ; Myotis ; Population ecology ; Species ; Synecology ; Vertebrata ; Wildlife habitats</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 1992-08, Vol.73 (4), p.1335-1345</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1992 The Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>1992 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Aug 1992</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3505-92c1567163528857d0e0302d4d767ba09984f5d8a48d0e780cbf1061cb90a6803</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1940680$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1940680$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27869,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=5514920$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saunders, Matthew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robert M. R. Barclay</creatorcontrib><title>Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><description>Wing morphology and echolocation call design have been used to make predictions regarding habitat—use and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Species with very different morphologies and/or calls forage in different habitats or in different ways. However, bat communities contain many morphologically similar species, which would be predicted to overlap ecologically. We tested the reliability of such predictions and assumptions by investigating the habitat use and diet of two similar species, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the long—legged bat (Myotis volans), in southern Alberta, Canada. We recorded the echolocation calls of free—flying individuals and measured wing morphology. The echolocation calls of the two species overlapped in design, although on average the calls of M. volans were shorter and had higher maximum frequency than those of M. lucifugus. Both species had low wing loading and aspect ratio although M. lucifugus had significantly higher values than did M. volans and was thus expected to forage in areas with less environmental clutter. Field observations did not substantiate this, however. We assessed the foraging ecology of the bats by: (1) monitoring species—specific echolocation calls of free—flying individuals, (2) capturing bats in mist—nets set in various habitats, (3) observing the foraging behavior of light—tagged individuals, and (4) assessing the diet from fecal samples. There was no evidence of temporal partitioning of resources by the two species, but some spatial partitioning occurred. Although individuals of both species generally fed in open areas, M. lucifugus foraged primarily low over water while M. volans fed high above the ground and along cliff edges. Neither fed consistently in cluttered areas despite wing and echolocation call designs that should permit such behavior. Despite the overlap in foraging areas, the diets of the two species differed significantly. Myotis volans ate primarily lepidopterans while M. lucifugus ate a wider variety of prey, including dipterans, lepidopterans, and coleopterans. Our results suggest that there are several levels at which morphology influences the ecology of insectivorous bats. Large differences may influence foraging—habitat choice by restricting some species to certain habitats. At another level, however, we suggest that small differences influence prey availability rather than habitat availability. Bats may select habitats based on the distribution of suitable prey rather than due to direct limitations imposed by morphology or echolocation call design.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Autoecology</subject><subject>Bats</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Coulees</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Foraging</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Insect ecology</subject><subject>Insect morphology</subject><subject>Mammalia</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Myotis</subject><subject>Population ecology</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>Vertebrata</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kl2LEzEUhoMoWOviTzCo6NXoOfmYJN6tperCigttL7wa0kympkwnNWld-u9NaVVY2M1NLt6HJ-cjhLxAeM84qA9oBNQaHpERGm4qgwoekxEAssrUUj8lz3JeQzko9Ii0Uxc3MW1_xj6uDjR29GrI3u3C75jiPtNPdpc_0ks693l3TG-Sb0OJ45DpIodhRee3kX77awjO9v2BzsIm9DbR2da74PNz8qSzffYX53tMFp-n88nX6vr7l6vJ5XXluARZGeZQ1gprLpnWUrXggQNrRatqtbRgjBadbLUVukRKg1t2CDW6pQFbWuZj8vbk3ab4a18qbjYhO9_3dvClmaaYBQfBC_jqDriO-zSU2hqGBhC0Odpe3wchM7VgUhbXmLw7US7FnJPvmm0KG5sODUJzXEhzXkgh35x9NpcxdckOLuR_uJQoDDti_ITdht4f7rM108kPNIYpLpBz-V--zruYHqjh5QnrbGzsKpX3FzMGWJfvoJiWjP8BIBap_g</recordid><startdate>199208</startdate><enddate>199208</enddate><creator>Saunders, Matthew B.</creator><creator>Robert M. R. Barclay</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><general>The Ecological Society of America</general><general>Brooklyn Botanic Garden, etc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FIXVA</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199208</creationdate><title>Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species</title><author>Saunders, Matthew B. ; Robert M. R. Barclay</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3505-92c1567163528857d0e0302d4d767ba09984f5d8a48d0e780cbf1061cb90a6803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Autoecology</topic><topic>Bats</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Coulees</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Foraging</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Insect ecology</topic><topic>Insect morphology</topic><topic>Mammalia</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Myotis</topic><topic>Population ecology</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>Vertebrata</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saunders, Matthew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robert M. R. Barclay</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 03</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saunders, Matthew B.</au><au>Robert M. R. Barclay</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><date>1992-08</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1335</spage><epage>1345</epage><pages>1335-1345</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><coden>ECGYAQ</coden><abstract>Wing morphology and echolocation call design have been used to make predictions regarding habitat—use and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Species with very different morphologies and/or calls forage in different habitats or in different ways. However, bat communities contain many morphologically similar species, which would be predicted to overlap ecologically. We tested the reliability of such predictions and assumptions by investigating the habitat use and diet of two similar species, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the long—legged bat (Myotis volans), in southern Alberta, Canada. We recorded the echolocation calls of free—flying individuals and measured wing morphology. The echolocation calls of the two species overlapped in design, although on average the calls of M. volans were shorter and had higher maximum frequency than those of M. lucifugus. Both species had low wing loading and aspect ratio although M. lucifugus had significantly higher values than did M. volans and was thus expected to forage in areas with less environmental clutter. Field observations did not substantiate this, however. We assessed the foraging ecology of the bats by: (1) monitoring species—specific echolocation calls of free—flying individuals, (2) capturing bats in mist—nets set in various habitats, (3) observing the foraging behavior of light—tagged individuals, and (4) assessing the diet from fecal samples. There was no evidence of temporal partitioning of resources by the two species, but some spatial partitioning occurred. Although individuals of both species generally fed in open areas, M. lucifugus foraged primarily low over water while M. volans fed high above the ground and along cliff edges. Neither fed consistently in cluttered areas despite wing and echolocation call designs that should permit such behavior. Despite the overlap in foraging areas, the diets of the two species differed significantly. Myotis volans ate primarily lepidopterans while M. lucifugus ate a wider variety of prey, including dipterans, lepidopterans, and coleopterans. Our results suggest that there are several levels at which morphology influences the ecology of insectivorous bats. Large differences may influence foraging—habitat choice by restricting some species to certain habitats. At another level, however, we suggest that small differences influence prey availability rather than habitat availability. Bats may select habitats based on the distribution of suitable prey rather than due to direct limitations imposed by morphology or echolocation call design.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><doi>10.2307/1940680</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-9658
ispartof Ecology (Durham), 1992-08, Vol.73 (4), p.1335-1345
issn 0012-9658
1939-9170
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16343043
source JSTOR; Periodicals Index Online
subjects Animal and plant ecology
Animal behavior
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Animals
Autoecology
Bats
Biological and medical sciences
Coulees
Diet
Ecology
Foraging
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Insect ecology
Insect morphology
Mammalia
Mammals
Myotis
Population ecology
Species
Synecology
Vertebrata
Wildlife habitats
title Ecomorphology of Insectivorous Bats: A Test of Predictions Using Two Morphologically Similar Species
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T16%3A56%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ecomorphology%20of%20Insectivorous%20Bats:%20A%20Test%20of%20Predictions%20Using%20Two%20Morphologically%20Similar%20Species&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Saunders,%20Matthew%20B.&rft.date=1992-08&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1335&rft.epage=1345&rft.pages=1335-1345&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft.coden=ECGYAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1940680&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1940680%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=219010890&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1940680&rfr_iscdi=true