Varying patterns of coexistence of two mouse lemur species (<i>Microcebus ravelobensis</i> and <i>M. murinus</i>) in a heterogeneous landscape

Rakotondravony, Romule; Radespiel, Ute

doi:10.1002/ajp.20732

Cited by 99 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of mouse lemurs, species separation and coexistence of similar species has been linked to different habitat components Rendigs et al, 2003;Rakotondravony and Radespiel, 2009;Thorén et al, 2011b]. The evolutionary benefit of one type of habitat utilization over the other remains enigmatic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their analysis, apart from dietary differences, interspecific differences in habitat utilization are major components for the separation of possible competitors in sympatry. This has been described for congeneric and sympatric species especially in Madagascar ( Eulemur [Freed, 1996;Overdorff, 1996], Hapalemur [Tan, 1999], Cheirogaleus [Lahann, 2008], Microcebus [Rakotondravony and Radespiel, 2009]), but also in South America, Asia and Africa [reviewed by Fleagle et al, 1999;Schreier et al, 2009]. Different ways of habitat utilization have been linked to specific modes of locomotion, such as different adaptations for a terrestrial versus arboreal lifestyle [Rodman, 1979], or the utilization of vertical versus horizontal structures [Ganzhorn, 1989;Demes et al, 1995;Warren and Crompton, 1998].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These differences in habitat utilization supplement the separation of Microcebus species along the classical niche dimensions of food and activity [Schoener, 1974;Kappeler, 2008a, b, 2010;Rakotondravony and Radespiel, 2009;Rakotondranary et al, 2011b]. As a next step, we ought to search for the evolutionary advantage of those specific habitat components for species that are very similar otherwise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These congeneric mouse lemur species differ in habitat utilization [Rendigs et al, 2003;Schwab and Ganzhorn, 2004;Dammhahn and Kappeler, 2008a, b;Génin, 2008;Rakotondravony and Radespiel, 2009;Rakotondranary et al, 2011a], food composition [Radespiel et al, 2006;Kappeler, 2008a, b, 2010;Rakotondranary et al, 2011b;Thorén et al, 2011b] and activity patterns [Thorén et al, 2011b]. Different habitat utilization might be due to different competitive potential of two sympatric species, such as in Ampijoroa where M. murinus outcompete M. ravelobensis [Thorén et al, 2011a].…”

Section: Habitat Separation Of Sympatric Mouse Lemursmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Habitat Separation of Sympatric Microcebus spp. in the Dry Spiny Forest of South-Eastern Madagascar

Rakotondranary

Ganzhorn²

2012

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether or not habitat structure contributes to the separation of two sister species of lemurs and their hybrids. For this, we studied Microcebusmurinus and M. griseorufus along a continuous vegetation gradient where populations of the two species occur in sympatry or in allopatry. In allopatry, the two species are generalists without any sign of microhabitat selectivity. In sympatry, both species differed significantly and discriminated against certain habitat structures: M. murinus was found in microhabitats with larger trees than average while M. griseorufus utilized microhabitats with smaller trees. Hybrids between the two species did not show any significant discrimination for or against microhabitat structure and did not differ in their habitat utilization from either parent species. Both species can go into torpor and hibernation. M. griseorufus is seen more frequently during the cool dry season than M. murinus. We assume that M. murinus goes into extended torpor or hibernation more frequently than M. griseorufus. We interpret the different occurrence of large-sized trees in microhabitats of M. murinus as a prerequisite for M. murinus to be able to spend extended periods of time in tree holes that are isolated and allow hibernation at reduced temperature levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Habitat Separation Of Sympatric Mouse Lemursmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Habitat Separation of Sympatric Microcebus spp. in the Dry Spiny Forest of South-Eastern Madagascar

Rakotondranary

Ganzhorn²

2012

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5.3, M. ravelobensis : ! 9.3 [Rakotondravony and Radespiel, 2009]). The findings underline the dispersed nature of the social organisation of this mouse lemur species and their correct classification as solitary foragers.…”

Section: Socialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

First Insights into the Social Organisation of Goodman’s Mouse Lemur (Microcebus lehilahytsara) – Testing Predictions from Socio-Ecological Hypotheses in the Masoala Hall of Zurich Zoo

Jürges

Kitzler²,

Zingg³

et al. 2013

IJFP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following current socio-ecological hypotheses, the social organisation of a species is mainly determined by resource quality and distribution. In the case of Microcebus spp., a taxon-specific socio-ecological model was formulated earlier to explain their variable social organisation. The aim of this study was to test predictions from this model in Goodman’s mouse lemur based on a data set from animals living in the semi-free colony of Zurich Zoo. During a 2-month study, we observed 5 females and 5 males using radiotelemetry. We collected data on space use and social behaviour, on sleeping sites and on sleeping group composition. Predictions were only partly confirmed. As expected, Goodman’s mouse lemurs were solitary foragers with an increased level of sociality due to crowding effects at the feeding stations. In contrast to the prediction, females and males formed unisexual sleeping groups, which were stable in females and of a fission-fusion type in males. Whereas the formation of sleeping groups by both sexes may be triggered by thermoregulatory benefits, the formation of unisexual sleeping groups may result from divergent interests of the sexes. We conclude that the existing model for the evolution of mouse lemur social organisation needs to be refined.

show abstract

Leaf nest use and construction in the golden‐brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis) in the Ankarafantsika National Park

Thorén

Quietzsch

Radespiel

2009

American J Primatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of leaf nests has been documented in several mouse lemur species over the last few decades, including the golden-brown mouse lemur. Nest construction, however, has only rarely been observed and detailed descriptions of this process are lacking so far. We aim to determine the relative importance of leaf nests as shelters for the golden-brown mouse lemur, and to test predictions concerning the role of thermoregulation, safety (i.e., protection of infants), and of interspecific competition with the sympatric gray mouse lemurs in regulating nest use. Finally, we intend to clarify whether and how Microcebus ravelobensis constructs the nests, and we provide physical descriptions of seven leaf nests. Nocturnal focal observations were carried out from May 2007 to January 2008 on 18 females, and sleeping sites were regularly monitored during a six-month period. Data were collected from two study sites, one with exclusive presence of M. ravelobensis, and one with co-existence of the two mouse lemur species. Sixty-five out of 379 identified daily sleeping sites were leaf nests. These represented a total of 35 different leaf nests, used by 15 out of 18 females. The relative leaf nest use differed between sites during five out of six months, but without a consistent pattern. Interspecific competition can therefore not explain leaf nest use. Leaf nest use differed seasonally and may be partly explained by thermoregulatory advantages in the site with lower minimum temperatures. Nest use was furthermore higher than expected in both sites during the rearing season that indicates the role of nests in infant protection. For the first time, we could confirm that golden-brown mouse lemurs build leaf nests themselves. Nest building lasted between 46 and 68 min, which shows that this task is time consuming and therefore probably costly.

show abstract

Varying patterns of coexistence of two mouse lemur species (Microcebus ravelobensis and M. murinus) in a heterogeneous landscape

Cited by 99 publications

References 42 publications

Habitat Separation of Sympatric Microcebus spp. in the Dry Spiny Forest of South-Eastern Madagascar

Habitat Separation of Sympatric Microcebus spp. in the Dry Spiny Forest of South-Eastern Madagascar

First Insights into the Social Organisation of Goodman’s Mouse Lemur (Microcebus lehilahytsara) – Testing Predictions from Socio-Ecological Hypotheses in the Masoala Hall of Zurich Zoo

Leaf nest use and construction in the golden‐brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis) in the Ankarafantsika National Park

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About