Habitat selection as a mechanism of resource partitioning in two cryptic bat species Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus

Abstract

Ecomorphological studies of bat communities often reveal the spatial and temporal coexistence of morphologically similar species, leading to suggestions that these communities are structured by non‐deterministic processes. However, the diversification of echolocation call structure in bats allows for considerable morphological similarity while still permitting niche differentiation based on specialisation for prey type and habitat structure. The recent separation of a common Palaearctic bat, the pipistrelle, into Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus, which are sympatrically distributed throughout their range, raises the question as to whether these two morphologically similar species partition resources in time and space. To test the hypothesis that the coexistence of these cryptic species is facilitated by differential habitat use, 14 P. pipistrellus, and 12 P. pygmaeus were radio‐tracked from adjacent maternity roosts, in northeast Scotland, from May to September 2002/2003. The two species showed distinct habitat partitioning with P. pygmaeus foraging predominantly in riparian woodland and over water, and P. pipistrellus foraging along woodland edges and short isolated tree lines. Inter‐specific overlap in habitat use was low and consequently foraging ranges were segregated spatially. The degree of habitat partitioning revealed in these species, which show considerable overlap in echolocation call parameters and functional morphology, suggests that morphological features, whilst useful in separating chiropteran species into coarse‐grained foraging guilds, may not predict fine‐grained ecological segregation.

Habitat preferences of bats in anthropogenically altered, mosaic landscapes of northern Poland

“…In Switzerland, stenotopic P. pygmaeus uses a much narrower habitat niche than eurytopic P. pipistrellus but completely overlaps with the niche of the latter (Sattler et al 2007). On the contrary, a principal component analysis, performed by Nichols and Racey (2006) on the proportion of time spent in each habitat, showed a distinct clustering of radiotracked individuals of the two species, with no overlap, providing clear evidence for habitat partitioning.…”

“…Co-occurring P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus may reveal partial-although subtle-separation of habitat niches (Nichols and Racey 2006). In south-western England, P. pygmaeus is more strongly associated with water bodies and riparian habitats in general, while P. pipistrellus uses a much broader habitat niche, also including arable land and villages (Vaughan et al 1997a;Davidson-Watts et al 2006).…”

“…Moreover, regional differences in species' habitat use might be modified by the presence or absence of potential competitors and the resulting differences in patterns of resource partitioning. Several studies focused on the habitat use of two sibling bat species, Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus in Western Europe (Vaughan et al 1997a;Russ and Montgomery 2002;Davidson-Watts et al 2006;Nichols and Racey 2006;Sattler et al 2007). However, they rarely included the third member of the Pipistrellus genus, Pipistrellus nathusii, i.e.…”

Bats and Water: Anthropogenic Alterations Threaten Global Bat Populations

“…Nicholls and Racey 2006), Nathusius' pipistrelle, Pipistrellus nathusii (Flaquer et al 2009), and other Pipistrellus spp. (Scott et al 2010), Schreiber's bat Miniopterus schreibersii (Serra-Cobo et al 2000) and noctules, Nyctalus spp.…”

Does interspecific competition drive patterns of habitat use in desert bat communities?

“…Vaughan et al 1997 522 We suggest that in spring P. kuhlii is associated with 523 small ponds, despite their lower insect abundance, to avoid 524 competition with T. teniotis and H. bodenheimeri for 525 drinking or foraging space above large ponds and with 526 P. rueppelli for foraging space above medium ponds. 527 Similarly, sympatric cryptic Pipistrellus species in the UK 528 partition their foraging habitat to the extent that P. pipi-529 strellus actively avoids riparian habitats, which are pre-530 ferred by P. pygmaeus, despite their greater insect resource 531 value (Nicholls and Racey 2006). 532 Although the diversity of Dipterans increases with pond 533 area and hydroperiod (Bazzanti et al 2006), some species 534 may be found exclusively in lower volume, shorter-lived…”