| Literature DB >> 24147029 |
Ivar Vleut1, Samuel Israel Levy-Tacher, Willem Frederik de Boer, Jorge Galindo-González, Luis-Bernardo Vazquez.
Abstract
Most studies on frugivorous bat assemblages in secondary forests have concentrated on differences among successional stages, and have disregarded the effect of forest management. Secondary forest management practices alter the vegetation structure and fruit availability, important factors associated with differences in frugivorous bat assemblage structure, and fruit consumption and can therefore modify forest succession. Our objective was to elucidate factors (forest structural variables and fruit availability) determining bat diversity, abundance, composition and species-specific abundance of bats in (i) secondary forests managed by Lacandon farmers dominated by Ochroma pyramidale, in (ii) secondary forests without management, and in (iii) mature rain forests in Chiapas, Southern Mexico. Frugivorous bat species diversity (Shannon H') was similar between forest types. However, bat abundance was highest in rain forest and O. pyramidale forests. Bat species composition was different among forest types with more Carollia sowelli and Sturnira lilium captures in O. pyramidale forests. Overall, bat fruit consumption was dominated by early-successional shrubs, highest late-successional fruit consumption was found in rain forests and more bats consumed early-successional shrub fruits in O. pyramidale forests. Ochroma pyramidale forests presented a higher canopy openness, tree height, lower tree density and diversity of fruit than secondary forests. Tree density and canopy openness were negatively correlated with bat species diversity and bat abundance, but bat abundance increased with fruit abundance and tree height. Hence, secondary forest management alters forests' structural characteristics and resource availability, and shapes the frugivorous bat community structure, and thereby the fruit consumption by bats.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24147029 PMCID: PMC3795674 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of captures per frugivorous bat species and subfamily in Ochroma pyramidale managed forests, secondary forests and rain forests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carolliinae |
| 185 |
| 112 |
| 109 |
| 406 | 24.7 |
| Carolliinae |
| 150 |
| 92 |
| 75 |
| 317 | 19.3 |
| Stenodermatinae |
| 19 |
| 28 |
| 171 |
| 218 | 13.3 |
| Stenodermatinae |
| 15 |
| 42 |
| 155 |
| 212 | 12.9 |
| Stenodermatinae |
| 87 |
| 31 |
| 35 |
| 153 | 9.3 |
| Glossophaginae |
| 13 | 4 | 26 | 43 | 2.6 | |||
| Glossophaginae |
| 17 | 32 | 54 | 103 | 6.3 | |||
| Phyllostominae |
| 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 0.7 | |||
| Phyllostominae |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.2 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.1 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 25 | 21 | 26 | 72 | 4.4 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 0.7 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 10 | 23 | 20 | 53 | 3.2 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 4 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 1.0 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 8 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 0.5 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.2 | |||
| Stenodermatinae |
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.1 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
Differences in the number of captures of the five most abundant frugivorous bat species among forest types are shown in bold letters; based on a post-hoc Tukey test for Carollia species or post-hoc Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for Artibeus bats and Sturnira lilium.
Figure 1Comparisons of different parameters among forest types.
Bars representing; (a) frugivorous bat diversity (Shannon H’), (b) log frugivorous bat abundance and (c) bat fruit consumption diversity (Shannon H’). Bars with equal letters are not significantly different; based on a two-tailed Hutcheson t-test for the frugivorous bat diversity and bat fruit consumption diversity and an ANOVA and Tuckey post-hoc test for the comparison of bat abundance.
Number of plant species recorded from fruits consumed by frugivorous bats, successional categories and life form follows Greig [69], Guevara [70], Levy-Tacher and Aguirre-Rivera [71] and Pennington and Sarukhán [25].
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Mid/late | Tree | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 8 | 2.3 |
|
| Late | Tree | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.6 |
|
| Early | Tree | 8 | 2.3 | 7 | 2.1 | 82 | 24.0 |
|
| Early | Tree | 37 | 10.9 | 28 | 8.2 | 8 | 2.3 |
|
| Late | Tree | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.9 | 19 | 5.6 |
|
| Late | Tree | 2 | 0.6 | 4 | 1.2 | 16 | 4.7 |
|
| Late | Tree | 3 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 1.2 |
|
| Late | Tree | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 13 | 3.8 |
|
| Early | Shrub | 83 | 24.3 | 38 | 11.1 | 21 | 6.2 |
|
| Mid/late | Shrub | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 |
|
| Mid/late | Shrub | 16 | 4.7 | 35 | 10.3 | 6 | 1.8 |
|
| Early | Shrub | 99 | 29.0 | 44 | 12.9 | 29 | 8.5 |
|
| Early/mid | Shrub | 35 | 10.3 | 28 | 8.2 | 25 | 7.3 |
|
| Early | Shrub | 8 | 2.3 | 7 | 2.1 | 2 | 0.6 |
|
| Shrub | 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.9 | |
|
| Early | Tree | 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.6 |
|
| Late | Tree | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.3 |
|
| Early | Shrub | 34 | 10.0 | 6 | 1.8 | 8 | 2.3 |
|
| Early | Shrub | 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 1.2 |
| Family Solanacea 1 | Shrub | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.6 | |
| Family Solanacea 2 | Shrub | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.3 | |
|
| 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 1.2 | ||
|
| 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
|
| 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
|
| 3 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
|
| 4 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.8 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
|
| 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.3 | ||
|
| 341 | 207 | 263 | |||||
|
| 16 | 12 | 23 | |||||
* Shows fruits only found carried by bats, i.e. not recorded from droppings.
Mean abundance (± AAD; average of absolute deviation) as the number of frugivorous bats per seed species encountered in fecal samples or carried fruits categorized per life form (tree and shrub) and successional stage (early or late).
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early-successional trees | 0.98 | ± | 0.98 |
| 0.75 | ± | 0.81 |
| 1.92 | ± | 2.03 |
|
| Early-successional shrubs | 4.71 | ± | 3.96 |
| 1.98 | ± | 1.40 |
| 1.35 | ± | 1.65 |
|
| Late-successional trees | 0.10 | ± | 0.19 |
| 0.15 | ± | 0.26 |
| 1.35 | ± | 1.39 |
|
| Late-successional shrubs | 1.10 | ± | 0.51 |
| 1.31 | ± | 1.62 |
| 0.71 | ± | 0.23 |
|
Differences in the number of frugivorous bats per life form and successional stage among the forest types are shown in bolds letters, based on Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction.
Vegetation structure, and monthly fruit diversity, abundance and availability of Piper and Cecropia species per ha, per forest type with Ochroma pyramidale forests, secondary forests and rain forests.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tree density (N/ha) | 1450 | ± | 3.39 |
| 1988 | ± | 6.85 |
| 875 | ± | 307 |
|
| Tree height (m) | 12.4 | ± | 1.8 |
| 9.8 | ± | 1.7 |
| 12.8 | ± | 2.9 |
|
| Tree diversity ( | 1.53 | ± | 0.31 |
| 1.7 | ± | 0.23 |
| 1.87 | ± | 0.39 |
|
| Canopy openness (%) | 13.5 | ± | 2.6 |
| 10.2 | ± | 1.8 |
| 5.3 | ± | 1.2 |
|
| Fruit diversity ( | 1.1 | ± | 0.23 |
| 1.5 | ± | 0.2 |
| 0.8 | ± | 0.14 |
|
| Fruit abundance (N/ha)* | 76.9 | ± | 47.8 |
| 102.0 | ± | 57.8 |
| 18.3 | ± | 10.2 |
|
|
| 1.3 | ± | 1.3 |
| 4.3 | ± | 1.9 |
| ||||
|
| 4.8 | ± | 5.8 |
| 2.6 | ± | 2.6 |
| ||||
|
| 3.8 | ± | 3.3 |
| 3.3 | ± | 3 |
| ||||
|
| 0.54 | ± | 0.9 |
| 2.7 | ± | 4.2 |
| 1.4 | ± | 2.3 |
|
|
| 0.77 | ± | 1.4 |
| 1.4 | ± | 2.4 |
| ||||
|
| 1.5 | 1.5 |
| 2.9 | ± | 2.8 |
| |||||
Letters in bold represent significant differences between treatments for each vegetation structure variable based on ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (*), or Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction and a Hutcheson two-tailed t-test (^). The difference in fruit availability of species only present in two forest types (Piper auritum, P. aduncum, P. hispidum and Cecropia obtusifolia) was tested with a Mann-Whitney U test.
Best model selections using Akaike information criterion (AICc) approach and model averaging with bat diversity and (log) bat abundance as dependent variables and tree density, tree height, canopy and fruit abundance as independent variables.
| Best model | Number of parameters | AICc | Delta AICc (Δ | Akaike weight ( | Coeff | SE | 95% CI | Relative importance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5% | 97.5% | |||||||||
| Bat diversity | 2 | 160.46 | 0 | 0.14 | ||||||
| Tree density | -0.022 | 0.009 | -0.039 | -0.005 | 0.92 | |||||
| Canopy | -0.022 | 0.013 | -0.049 | 0.005 | 0.57 | |||||
| (Log) Bat abundance | 4 | 61.73 | 0 | 0.30 | ||||||
| Canopy | -0.015 | 0.009 | -0.035 | 0.003 | 0.60 | |||||
| Fruit abundance | 0.014 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.021 | 1.00 | |||||
| Tree density | -0.016 | 0.007 | -0.031 | -0.003 | 0.87 | |||||
| Tree height | 0.039 | 0.015 | 0.009 | 0.071 | 0.94 | |||||
Each model presented AICc values, Akaike weights (wi) and delta AICc differences (Δi). Standardized model-averaged coefficients (Coeff), weighted unconditional standard errors (SE), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and relative importance are provided for each independent variable in the best-supported models.
Figure 2Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of frugivorous bat species abundance and the associated significant environmental variables.
Sites: 1-4 O. pyramidale managed forests, 5-8 secondary forests and 9-12 rain forests. Directions of arrows indicate increasing variable value. Italic letters represent frugivorous bat species names, with 1st letter for genus and 2nd letter for species (exception: Centurio senex is C. sx; see Table 1).
Significant structural vectors in the non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity performed on frugivorous bat species abundance for each forest type site, showing correlation coefficient (r) and significance (P) based on 999 permutations.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Canopy openness (%) | 0.933 | 0.001 |
| Tree density (N/ha) | 0.654 | 0.009 |
| Fruit abundance (N) | 0.843 | 0.002 |
| Fruit diversity ( | 0.684 | 0.007 |