Habitat partitioning of two closely related pond frogs, Pelophylax nigromaculatus and Pelophylax porosus brevipodus , du
- PDF / 1,088,568 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 103 Downloads / 186 Views
Habitat partitioning of two closely related pond frogs, Pelophylax nigromaculatus and Pelophylax porosus brevipodus, during their breeding season Kosuke Nakanishi1,2 · Atsushi Honma1,3 · Mariko Furukawa1 · Koh‑Ichi Takakura1 · Nobuyuki Fujii1 · Kiyohito Morii1 · Yuki Terasawa1 · Takayoshi Nishida1 Received: 15 July 2019 / Accepted: 30 June 2020 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract Parapatric distributions of closely related species are common in many taxonomic groups. However, habitat overlap in sympatric areas within both species’ ranges is complex and driven by the nature of the interactions between species as well as each species’ ecological requirements. We therefore investigated the distribution of breeding habitats for two congeneric frogs, Pelophylax nigromaculatus and Pelophylax porosus brevipodus, in a region of Japan where these species co-occur, based on observation of mating calls as an index of the abundance of males engaging in reproductive activities. Among a total of 381 surveyed sites, P. nigromaculatus and P. porosus brevipodus were found at 171 and 229 sites, respectively. Pelophylax porosus brevipodus was widely distributed throughout the study area and was more abundant than P. nigromaculatus in sympatric sites. Analysis using cumulative link mixed models revealed that the abundance of calling males was negatively affected by the presence of calling males of the other species and by landscape factors. Interspecific differences in this negative effect appear to favor P. porosus brevipodus over P. nigromaculatus in our study area. Due to differences in the primary habitat preferences of the two species during the non-breeding season, habitat partitioning during the breeding season is likely driven by negative interspecific interactions during the reproductive process (i.e., reproductive interference). Keywords Distribution pattern · Interspecific interaction · Parapatry · Rana · Rice fields · Reproductive interference
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s1068 2-020-10061-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Kosuke Nakanishi [email protected] 1
School of Environmental Science, The University of Shiga Prefecture, Hikone, Shiga 522‑8533, Japan
2
Center for Health and Environmental Risk Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305‑8506, Japan
3
Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa 903‑0213, Japan
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Evolutionary Ecology
Introduction Often, the habitat distributions of closely related species do not overlap, even though their geographical distributions overlap. Parapatric distribution (including habitat partitioning) of closely related species has been reported in many taxonomic groups (reviewed by Bull 1991). Bull (1991) suggested five mechanisms of parapatry: ecotonal change (abiotic factor), interspecific competition (resource competition), predation, parasites and disease, and reproduct
Data Loading...
