Foraging Ecology of a Bat Assemblage
Marisa Reese Arh
Abstract
Open-access reader
Marisa Reese Arh
Abstract
Open-access reader
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.
OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
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