| Literature DB >> 28412938 |
Melanie Dammhahn1, Toky M Randriamoria2,3, Steven M Goodman2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rodents of the genus Rattus are among the most pervasive and successful invasive species, causing major vicissitudes in native ecological communities. A broad and flexible generalist diet has been suggested as key to the invasion success of Rattus spp. Here, we use an indirect approach to better understand foraging niche width, plasticity, and overlap within and between introduced Rattus spp. in anthropogenic habitats and natural humid forests of Madagascar.Entities:
Keywords: Bayesian standard ellipse; Coexistence; Fur; Habitat use; Humid forest; Invasion ecology; Invasive species; Rattus norvegicus; Rattus rattus; Rodents; Stable carbon isotope; Stable nitrogen isotope
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28412938 PMCID: PMC5393019 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-017-0125-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Fig. 1Sampling sites of Rattus spp. in the Moramanga District (Alaotra Mangoro Region) of central eastern Madagascar. The town of Moramanga is indicated by a black dot
Summary of trapping results and sampling for stable isotope analyses of R. rattus and R. norvegicus in the three habitat types and by site
| Type of site | Site name | Season |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | Anthropogenic steppe | Agricultural field | Forest | Anthropogenic steppe | Agricultural field | |||
| Natural forest | Antavibe | Dry | 60 (26) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Wet | 15 (11) | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Avondrona | Dry | 11 (11) | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Wet | 70 (40) | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Lakato | Dry | 130 (1) | – | – | 1 (1) | – | – | |
| Wet | 28 (26) | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Sahandambo | Wet | 47 (15) | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Village | Ambalafary | Dry | – | 156 (37) | 16 (4) | – | 2 (2) | – |
| Wet | – | 66 (64) | 7 (6) | – | – | – | ||
| Antanambao | Wet | – | 62 (29) | 21 (4) | – | – | 1 (1) | |
| Antsahatsaka | Dry | – | 68 (3) | 95 (1) | – | – | 7 (7) | |
| Wet | – | 30 (13) | 22 (8) | – | – | 3 (3) | ||
| Antsirinala | Dry | – | 22 (12) | 15 (10) | – | – | 1 (1) | |
| Maridaza | Wet | – | 82 (40) | 8 (7) | – | 2 (2) | 4 (4) | |
| Natural forest-village | Besakay | Dry | 90 (0) | 104 (2) | 35 (0) | – | – | – |
| Wet | 8 (1) | 60 (16) | 21 (7) | – | 1 (1) | – | ||
| Dry | 34 (24) | 94 (38) | 28 (13) | – | – | – | ||
| Mahatsara | Wet | 3 (3) | 33 (3) | 31 (3) | – | – | – | |
| Sahavarina | Dry | 17 (10) | 20 (11) | 60 (43) | – | – | 2 (2) | |
| Wet | 8 (8) | 2 (2) | 17 (13) | – | – | – | ||
As not all captured animals were sampled for stable isotope analyses, these different values are presented. The first figure under the habitat types is the number of captured individuals based on 600 standard live trap-nights per site and the second figure, in parentheses, is the number of individuals included in the stable isotope analyses. In the “natural forest” sites, traps were limited to forest habitat; in “village” sites, traps were in anthropogenic steppe and agricultural fields; and in “natural forest-village” sites, traps were in all three habitats. -: not present
Fig. 2Scatterplot—stable carbon and nitrogen values of individual R. rattus from agricultural fields, natural forests, and anthropogenic steppe. Polygons indicate convex hull areas (broken lines); ellipses indicate standard ellipse areas (solid lines). Boxplot—stable isotope niche areas of R. rattus from natural forests and anthropogenic steppe were wider than that of R. rattus from agricultural fields, based on Bayesian standard ellipse estimates with SIAR. Shown are posterior modes (dot) and the 25, 75, and 95% credibility intervals of posterior distributions of 10,000 simulations (boxes)
Results of multivariate Bayesian mixed models on within-species niche variation in R. rattus
| Parameter | Posterior mean | l-95% CI | u-95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept δ13C |
|
|
|
|
| Intercept δ15N |
|
|
|
|
| Anthropogenic steppea | 0.24 | −0.05 | 0.59 | 0.138 |
| Agricultural fielda |
|
|
|
|
Shown are posterior means, lower, and upper 95% credibility intervals and P values, which are based on 10,000 simulations
Significant results are marked in italic
Reference level is anatural forest
Results of univariate LMMs for δ13C and δ15N on within-species niche variation in R. rattus
| Parameter | β ± SE |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| δ13C | |||||
| Intercept |
|
|
| ||
| Anthropogenic steppea |
|
|
| ||
| Agricultural fielda | 0.58 ± 0.32 | 1.80 | 0.072 |
|
|
| δ15N | |||||
| Intercept |
|
|
| ||
| Anthropogenic steppea | 0.07 ± 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.696 | ||
| Agricultural fielda | 0.34 ± 0.22 | 1.58 | 0.114 | 2.80 | 0.246 |
Significant results are marked in italic
Reference level is anatural forest
*Χ and P values are based on log-likelihood-ratio tests (LRT) comparing models with and without the main effect of habitat type with df = 2
Results of multivariate Bayesian mixed models on niche differentiation between R. rattus and R. norvegicus
| Parameter | Posterior mean | l-95% CI | u-95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept δ13C |
|
|
|
|
| Intercept δ15N |
|
|
|
|
| Speciesa |
|
|
|
|
| Anthropogenic steppeb | 0.25 | −0.06 | 0.55 | 0.116 |
| Agricultural fieldb | 0.29 | −0.05 | 0.66 | 0.126 |
Shown are posterior means, lower and upper 95% credibility intervals, and P values, which are based on 10,000 simulations
Significant results are marked in italic
Reference levels are a R. norvegicus and b natural forest
Fig. 3Scatterplot—stable carbon and nitrogen values of individual co-occurring R. rattus and R. norvegicus. Polygons indicate convex hull areas (broken lines) and ellipses indicate standard ellipse areas (solid lines). Boxplot—stable isotope niches of R. rattus and R. norvegicus differ markedly in width, based on Bayesian standard ellipse estimates with SIAR. Shown are posterior modes (dot) and the 25, 75, and 95% credibility intervals of posterior distributions of 10,000 simulations (boxes)
Results of univariate LMMs for δ13C and δ15N on niche differentiation between R. rattus and R. norvegicus
| Parameter | β ± SE |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| δ13C | |||||
| Intercept |
|
|
| ||
| Speciesa | 0.34 ± 0.43 | 0.78 | 0.433 | 0.71 | 0.39 |
| Anthropogenic steppeb |
|
|
| ||
| Agricultural fieldb |
|
|
|
|
|
| δ15N | |||||
| Intercept |
|
|
| ||
| Speciesa |
|
|
|
|
|
| Anthropogenic steppeb | 0.05 ± 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.796 | ||
| Agricultural fieldb | 0.13 ± 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.585 | 0.31 | 0.85 |
Significant results are marked in italic
Reference levels are a R. norvegicus and b natural forest
*Χ and P values are based on log-likelihood-ratio tests (LRT) comparing models with and without the respective term with df = 1; c for the main effect of habitat type with df = 2