2009TSpace (University of Toronto)Open access

Foraging Ecology of a Bat Assemblage

Marisa Reese Arh

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

Here I examine five non-migratory sympatric bat species that are similar in their morphology and general ecology: Eptesicus fuscus, three myotid bats, Myotis leibii, M. lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, and Pipistrellus (= Perimyotis) subflavus. By examining echolocation call structure, wing and jaw morphology and diet, I defined finer niche differences between species. M. lucifugus and M. septentrionalis differ in the relative abundance of moths in their diet. My results on skull morphology suggest M. lucifugus consumes harder insects than M. septentrionalis. Conversely, my data suggests M. leibii is not as efficient within a cluttered habitat but is capable of foraging in edge habitats. Eptesicus fuscus is capable of efficiently consuming larger insects whereas P. subflavus has echolocation and jaw characteristics that indicate specialization in smaller insects. Significant differences amongst these 5 species are evident based on my data of overall morphology and diet.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Here I examine five non-migratory sympatric bat species that are similar in their morphology and general ecology: Eptesicus fuscus, three myotid bats, Myotis leibii, M. lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, and Pipistrellus (= Perimyotis) subflavus. By examining echolocation call structure, wing and jaw morphology and diet, I defined finer niche differences between species. M. lucifugus and M. septentrionalis differ in the relative abundance of moths in their diet. My results on skull morphology suggest M. lucifugus consumes harder insects than M. septentrionalis. Conversely, my data suggests M. leibii is not as efficient within a cluttered habitat but is capable of foraging in edge habitats. Eptesicus fuscus is capable of efficiently consuming larger insects whereas P. subflavus has echolocation and jaw characteristics that indicate specialization in smaller insects. Significant differences amongst these 5 species are evident based on my data of overall morphology and diet.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Here I examine five non-migratory sympatric bat species that are similar in their morphology and general ecology: Eptesicus fuscus, three myotid bats, Myotis leibii, M. lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, and Pipistrellus (= Perimyotis) subflavus. By examining echolocation call structure, wing and jaw morphology and diet, I defined finer niche differences between species. M. lucifugus and M. septentrionalis differ in the relative abundance of moths in their diet. My results on skull morphology suggest M. lucifugus consumes harder insects than M. septentrionalis. Conversely, my data suggests M. leibii is not as efficient within a cluttered habitat but is capable of foraging in edge habitats. Eptesicus fuscus is capable of efficiently consuming larger insects whereas P. subflavus has echolocation and jaw characteristics that indicate specialization in smaller insects. Significant differences amongst these 5 species are evident based on my data of overall morphology and diet.

Key concepts: Myotis lucifugus, Eptesicus fuscus, Human echolocation, Biology, Sympatric speciation, Foraging, Ecology, Habitat

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Foraging Ecology of a Bat Assemblage — Research Paper | ScholarLens