2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01425
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trophic guild and forest type explain phyllostomid bat abundance variation from human habitat disturbance

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…30 years of secondary forest regeneration, secondary forest is still less attractive as foraging habitat for most aerial insectivorous bat species. These results are consistent with those commonly reported for gleaning animalivorous bats, whose capture rates typically decrease in disturbed habitats (Rocha et al., 2017b; Webala et al., 2019; Willig et al., 2019), probably due to being poorer foraging and roosting areas (Carballo‐Morales, Saldaña‐Vásquez and Villalobos, 2021; Meyer and Kalko, 2008). Yet, they contrast with results from nectarivorous and frugivorous bats, which normally increase in abundance in fragments and in secondary forest due the higher density of food resources (Bobrowiec and Gribel, 2010; Farneda et al., 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…30 years of secondary forest regeneration, secondary forest is still less attractive as foraging habitat for most aerial insectivorous bat species. These results are consistent with those commonly reported for gleaning animalivorous bats, whose capture rates typically decrease in disturbed habitats (Rocha et al., 2017b; Webala et al., 2019; Willig et al., 2019), probably due to being poorer foraging and roosting areas (Carballo‐Morales, Saldaña‐Vásquez and Villalobos, 2021; Meyer and Kalko, 2008). Yet, they contrast with results from nectarivorous and frugivorous bats, which normally increase in abundance in fragments and in secondary forest due the higher density of food resources (Bobrowiec and Gribel, 2010; Farneda et al., 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…riparius also preferentially foraged in the understory, while other aerial insectivores, including other Myotis species, were more active in the higher strata and above the canopy (Marqués et al, 2016), suggesting a behavioral specialization for forest foraging. Together, our results on community composition and species habitat association support the idea that the responses of particular species to habitat disturbance is context specific (reviewed in Carballo-Morales et al, 2021; Farneda et al, 2020) and that members of each trophic group can be present at the onset of restoration.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Another notable bias concerns the bat species in our dataset. For instance, frugivores, the most heavily represented group (45% of unique species), are one of the most tolerant dietary guilds to habitat disturbance (Carballo‐Morales et al, 2021 ). If ectoparasite dynamics are less severely affected when infesting more tolerant species, this bias could result in conservative estimates of the effects of fragmentation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%