| Literature DB >> 27926923 |
Rodrigo García-Morales1, Claudia E Moreno1, Ernesto I Badano2, Iriana Zuria1, Jorge Galindo-González3, Alberto E Rojas-Martínez1, Eva S Ávila-Gómez1.
Abstract
Functional diversity is the variability in the functional roles carried out by species within ecosystems. Changes in the environment can affect this component of biodiversity and can, in turn, affect different processes, including some ecosystem services. This study aimed to determine the effect of forest loss on species richness, abundance and functional diversity of Neotropical bats. To this end, we identified six landscapes with increasing loss of forest cover in the Huasteca region of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. We captured bats in each landscape using mist nets, and calculated functional diversity indices (functional richness and functional evenness) along with species richness and abundance. We analyzed these measures in terms of percent forest cover. We captured 906 bats (Phyllostomidae and Mormoopidae), including 10 genera and 12 species. Species richness, abundance and functional richness per night are positively related with forest cover. Generalized linear models show that species richness, abundance and functional richness per night are significantly related with forest cover, while seasonality had an effect on abundance and functional richness. Neither forest cover nor season had a significant effect on functional evenness. All these findings were consistent across three spatial scales (1, 3 and 5 km radius around sampling sites). The decrease in species, abundance and functional richness of bats with forest loss may have implications for the ecological processes they carry out such as seed dispersal, pollination and insect predation, among others.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27926923 PMCID: PMC5142789 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Percent of forest vegetation cover for the six sampling sites in the Huasteca region, in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
For each site, vegetation cover was measured in three spatial scales (buffers with different radius around sampling sites).
| Landscape scale | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling site | 1 km | 3 km | 5 km |
| 1 | 66.29 | 72.41 | 85.96 |
| 2 | 58.68 | 71.28 | 71.25 |
| 3 | 36.10 | 35.72 | 50.14 |
| 4 | 32.53 | 30.43 | 38.97 |
| 5 | 27.27 | 30.19 | 28.01 |
| 6 | 13.16 | 27.62 | 23.42 |
Functional traits used to determine the functional diversity of the bat community in the Huasteca region of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
Functional groups of the frugivorous species (S1 Fig): F1: Sturnira hondurensis and S. parvidens, F2: Artibeus lituratus and A. jamaicensis, F3: Carollia perspicillata and Dermanura tolteca, and F4: Chiroderma salvini.
| Type of datum | Functional trait | Attribute | Functional value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Categorical | Diet | Fruit | F1, F2, F3 and F4 |
| Nectar and pollen | Nectarivorous | ||
| Blood | Hematophage | ||
| Insects | Insectivorous | ||
| Numerical | Weight | Body weight | Mean for the species (g) |
| Size | Forearm | Mean length for the species (cm) | |
| Wing morphology | Wing loading | Mean for the species | |
| Aspect ratio | Mean for the species |
List of bat species captured.
For each species we include the total number of individuals recorded in each site of the Huasteca region in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
| Family | Species | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | Site 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mormoopidae | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Phyllostomidae | 106 | 24 | 26 | 35 | 14 | 13 | |
| 67 | 21 | 7 | 21 | 13 | 20 | ||
| 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 12 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 20 | 0 | ||
| 9 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 21 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 83 | 42 | 25 | 26 | 36 | 12 | ||
| 55 | 22 | 40 | 24 | 25 | 8 |
Cumulative parameters of bat communities.
Data correspond to six sampling sites in the Huasteca region, Hidalgo, Mexico.
| Site | Abundance | Species richness | Estimated richness (ACE) | Inventory completeness (%) | Functional richness (FD) | Functional evenness (FEve) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 340 | 10 | 12.99 | 76.98 | 4.46 | 0.39 |
| 2 | 131 | 11 | 11 | 100 | 4.82 | 0.43 |
| 3 | 106 | 6 | 6 | 100 | 2.64 | 0.68 |
| 4 | 130 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 2.96 | 0.68 |
| 5 | 119 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 3.12 | 0.77 |
| 6 | 80 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 2.95 | 0.62 |
| 1 | 95 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 3.12 | 0.73 |
| 2 | 59 | 8 | 8 | 100 | 3.32 | 0.73 |
| 3 | 38 | 6 | 6 | 100 | 2.64 | 0.73 |
| 4 | 36 | 6 | 6.97 | 86.00 | 2.64 | 0.71 |
| 5 | 35 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 3.12 | 0.76 |
| 6 | 22 | 5 | 5 | 100 | 2.15 | 0.78 |
| 1 | 245 | 10 | 11.49 | 87.00 | 4.46 | 0.42 |
| 2 | 72 | 10 | 10.33 | 96.80 | 4.59 | 0.50 |
| 3 | 68 | 5 | 5 | 100 | 2.15 | 0.57 |
| 4 | 94 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 2.96 | 0.71 |
| 5 | 84 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 3.12 | 0.76 |
| 6 | 58 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 2.95 | 0.62 |
Fig 1Bat community parameters per sampling night in relation to forest cover in the Huasteca region, Hidalgo, Mexico.
As an example, forest cover is shown when it is measured in the buffers of 1 km radius around sampling sites, given that all the results are consistent at the 3 measured spatial scales. Six sampling nights were carried out at each one of the six sites (total n = 36).
Summary of generalized linear models results.
Bat diversity parameters (species richness, abundance, functional richness and functional abundance) were tested as dependent variables. In all cases, the fitted model was Y = μ + Forest cover + Season + ε.
| 1 km | 3 km | 5 km | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient estimate | S.E. | z / t value | P | Coefficient estimate | S.E. | z / t value | P | Coefficient estimate | S.E. | z / t value | P | |
| Intercept | 1.04 | 0.29 | 3.62 | <0.01 | 1.00 | 0.29 | 3.43 | <0.01 | 1.06 | 0.29 | 3.69 | <0.01 |
| Forest cover | 0.01 | <0.01 | 2.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 2.35 | 0.02 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 2.02 | 0.04 |
| Season | 0.19 | 0.14 | 1.30 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 1.30 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 1.30 | 0.19 |
| Null deviance, d.f. | 18.09, 35 | 18.09, 35 | 18.09, 35 | |||||||||
| Residual deviance, d.f. | 11.65, 33 | 11.01, 33 | 12.37, 33 | |||||||||
| AIC | 143.58 | 142.94 | 144.30 | |||||||||
| Intercept | 0.97 | 0.37 | 2.64 | <0.01 | 0.99 | 0.39 | 2.56 | 0.01 | 0.99 | 0.37 | 2.66 | <0.01 |
| Forest cover | 0.02 | <0.01 | 4.46 | <0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 | 3.99 | <0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 | 4.30 | <0.01 |
| Season | 0.80 | 0.19 | 4.28 | <0.01 | 0.80 | 0.19 | 4.12 | <0.01 | 0.80 | 0.19 | 4.24 | <0.01 |
| Null deviance, d.f. | 75.57, 35 | 69.43, 35 | 74.81, 35 | |||||||||
| Residual deviance, d.f. | 36.40, 33 | 36.58, 33 | 36.57, 33 | |||||||||
| AIC | 281.14 | 284.37 | 281.68 | |||||||||
| Intercept | 0.97 | 0.39 | 2.47 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.39 | 2.18 | 0.04 | 1.02 | 0.41 | 2.50 | 0.02 |
| Forest cover | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.45 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.84 | <0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 3.05 | <0.01 |
| Season | 0.43 | 0.21 | 2.06 | 0.05 | 0.43 | 0.20 | 2.13 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.21 | 2.00 | 0.05 |
| Null deviance, d.f. | 18.77, 35 | 18.77, 35 | 18.77, 35 | |||||||||
| Residual deviance, d.f. | 12.60, 33 | 11.84, 33 | 13.37, 33 | |||||||||
| AIC | 72.37 | 70.14 | 74.50 | |||||||||
| Intercept | 0.75 | 1.35 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.79 | 1.39 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.82 | 1.37 | 0.60 | 0.55 |
| Forest cover | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.84 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.89 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.91 |
| Season | -0.12 | 0.70 | -0.18 | 0.85 | -0.13 | 0.71 | -0.18 | 0.86 | -0.13 | 0.71 | -0.18 | 0.86 |
| Null deviance, d.f. | 1.95, 35 | 1.95, 35 | 1.95, 35 | |||||||||
| Residual deviance, d.f. | 1.87, 33 | 1.89, 33 | 1.90, 33 | |||||||||
| AIC | 37.21 | 37.29 | 37.32 | |||||||||
Significance codes
* P<0.05
** P<0.01
*** P<0.001.