Patterns and drivers determining phyllostomid bat diversity in land-bridge islands off the south-east coast of Brazil

Abstract

Few studies that apply the theory of island biogeography have considered the functional and phylogenetic dimensions of diversity. However, the joint use of the three diversity dimensions, i.e. taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic, can help us to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying ecological and evolutionary processes. Here, we compare phyllostomid bat assemblages between five land-bridge islands off the south-east coast of Brazil and compare these islands with three sites on the mainland. For this, we have estimated the three dimensions of α- and β-diversity, nestedness and community indexes based on mean trait values for the islands and the mainland. The mainland showed higher species richness and taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity. In addition, only species richness and phylogenetic diversity were positively related to island area. Taxonomically and functionally, the poorest assemblages (minor islands) were subgroups of the richer assemblages (mainland and larger islands). Taken together, our results show that bat assemblages of smaller islands tend to be more sensitive to changes in species richness than those of larger islands, with the larger islands working as a ‘source’ of species for small islands. These results demonstrate the high conservation value of the larger islands, which has direct consequences for local population dynamics of phyllostomid bats.

Scale‐dependent influences of environmental, historical, and spatial processes on taxonomic and functional beta diversity of Japanese bat assemblages

“…Thus, the result of taxonomic β rich indicates that the species-area relationship (SAR) on islands determines the differences in species richness among assemblages, which is consistent with bat assemblages in other regions (Carvajal & Adler, 2005;Carvalho et al, 2021;Frick et al, 2008;Ricklefs & Lovette, 1999). Our results are supported by reports of SAR in non-vorant mammals in the Japanese Archipelago (Millien-Parra & Jaeger, 1999).…”

“…In this study, niche‐based processes included island size, and it is considered that the fraction of island size was shared with spatial factors because the minor islands were particularly isolated. Thus, the result of taxonomic β rich indicates that the species‐area relationship (SAR) on islands determines the differences in species richness among assemblages, which is consistent with bat assemblages in other regions (Carvajal & Adler, 2005 ; Carvalho et al., 2021 ; Frick et al., 2008 ; Ricklefs & Lovette, 1999 ). Our results are supported by reports of SAR in non‐vorant mammals in the Japanese Archipelago (Millien‐Parra & Jaeger, 1999 ).…”

Elevation drives taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic β‐diversity of phyllostomid bats in the Amazon biome

“…To calculate functional β‐diversity, we selected five functional traits of Neotropical bats commonly used in studies in the Neotropical region (Bogoni et al, 2021; Carvalho, Lourenço, et al, 2021): body mass, forearm size, trophic level, diet and habitat breadth (data available in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14701728.v3).…”

From island biogeography to landscape and metacommunity ecology: A macroecological perspective of bat communities

“…In addition, there are some limitations to available data or methods, especially those that use only incidence data (e.g., analyses based on species richness and EMS), which is a coarse approach to estimate biodiversity or community composition. Historically, taxonomic approaches have dominated studies of biodiversity in spatial ecology; however, as more data on species function and phylogeny become widely available, adding approaches that evaluate patterns of functional or phylogenetic biodiversity may help to distinguish between theories that predict similar taxonomic biodiversity, but distinct patterns of functional or phylogenetic biodiversity on islands, 147,148 in metacommunities, 149,150 or in human‐dominated landscapes 119,151,152 …”

“…Historically, taxonomic approaches have dominated studies of biodiversity in spatial ecology; however, as more data on species function and phylogeny become widely available, adding approaches that evaluate patterns of functional or phylogenetic biodiversity may help to distinguish between theories that predict similar taxonomic biodiversity, but distinct patterns of functional or phylogenetic biodiversity on islands, 147,148 in metacommunities, 149,150 or in human-dominated landscapes. 119,151,152…”