2015
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12490
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trait‐related responses to habitat fragmentation in Amazonian bats

Abstract: 1. Understanding how interspecific variation in functional traits influences species' capacity to persist in fragments and use patches in fragmented landscapes is fundamental for the creation of effective conservation plans. This study uses phylogenetic comparative methods to investigate which functional traits of bat species are correlated with their vulnerability to fragmentation in a tropical landscape with low fragment-matrix contrast. 2. Bats were captured over two years in eight forest fragments, nine co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
162
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(175 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(87 reference statements)
13
162
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10 Although bat community differences between primary forest and secondary growth have often been reported in the literature, the results are usually interpreted in terms of trophic-guild membership. In particular, secondary vegetation is consistently said to be deficient in gleaning-animalivorous species by comparison with primary forest (e.g., by LaVal and Fitch, 1977;Simmons and Voss, 1998;Bobrowiec and Gribel, 2010;Farneda et al, 2015). Although we do not dispute this frequently reported result, we note that it is difficult to explain in trophic terms, because the large insects and small vertebrates that are preyed upon by gleaning-animalivorous bats seem to be abundant in secondary vegetation (LaVal and Fitch, 1977).…”
Section: Implications For Community Ecologymentioning
confidence: 59%
“…10 Although bat community differences between primary forest and secondary growth have often been reported in the literature, the results are usually interpreted in terms of trophic-guild membership. In particular, secondary vegetation is consistently said to be deficient in gleaning-animalivorous species by comparison with primary forest (e.g., by LaVal and Fitch, 1977;Simmons and Voss, 1998;Bobrowiec and Gribel, 2010;Farneda et al, 2015). Although we do not dispute this frequently reported result, we note that it is difficult to explain in trophic terms, because the large insects and small vertebrates that are preyed upon by gleaning-animalivorous bats seem to be abundant in secondary vegetation (LaVal and Fitch, 1977).…”
Section: Implications For Community Ecologymentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Such studies have the potential to explore how patch characteristics (e.g., landscape composition and configuration of forest patches) as well as matrix characteristics (e.g., structural or compositional attributes of the converted land) interact to affect the bat fauna. See text for additional details environmental factors interact to shape species responses to landscape change is unclear, as trait-based approaches have been rare (but see Farneda et al 2015). Understanding how functional and phylogenetic biodiversity changes during habitat conversion and secondary succession is investigated rarely and remains poorly understood.…”
Section: General Conclusion and Future Research Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be the case of Vampyrum spectrum, Chrostopterus auritus, Lophostoma evotis or Trachops cirrhosus which are reported scarce in the Los Tuxtlas region, but were absent at PAFFASIT. Farneda et al (2015) pointed out that many "carnivorous" bat species rarely persist in small fragments (<100 ha). Although PAFFASIT is of moderate size, it is apparently not large enough to sustain these species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bats are considered keystone species according to research on the effects of the forest fragmentation. However, fragmentation studies on tropical bats show contradictory results, and should be more widely investigated (Diogo 2015;Farneda et al 2015;Meyer et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation