24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Table for five, please: Dietary partitioning in boreal bats

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Differences in diet can explain resource partitioning in apparently similar, sympatric species. Here, we analyzed 1,252 fecal droppings from five species ( Eptesicus nilssonii, Myotis brandtii, M. daubentonii, M. mystacinus, and Plecotus auritus) to reveal their dietary niches using fecal DNA metabarcoding. We identified nearly 550 prey species in 13 arthropod orders. Two main orders (Diptera and Lepidoptera) formed the majority of the diet for all species, constituting roughly 80%–90% of the diet. All five species had different dietary assemblages. We also found significant differences in the size of prey species between the bat species. Our results on diet composition remain mostly unchanged when using either read counts as a proxy for quantitative diet or presence–absence data, indicating a strong biological pattern. We conclude that although bats share major components in their ecology (nocturnal life style, insectivory, and echolocation), species differ in feeding behavior, suggesting bats may have distinctive evolutionary strategies. Diet analysis helps illuminate life history traits of various species, adding to sparse ecological knowledge, which can be utilized in conservation planning.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species.

          Ecologists are increasingly adopting an evolutionary perspective, and in recent years, the idea that closely related species are ecologically similar has become widespread. In this regard, phylogenetic signal must be distinguished from phylogenetic niche conservatism. Phylogenetic niche conservatism results when closely related species are more ecologically similar that would be expected based on their phylogenetic relationships; its occurrence suggests that some process is constraining divergence among closely related species. In contrast, phylogenetic signal refers to the situation in which ecological similarity between species is related to phylogenetic relatedness; this is the expected outcome of Brownian motion divergence and thus is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence for the existence of phylogenetic niche conservatism. Although many workers consider phylogenetic niche conservatism to be common, a review of case studies indicates that ecological and phylogenetic similarities often are not related. Consequently, ecologists should not assume that phylogenetic niche conservatism exists, but rather should empirically examine the extent to which it occurs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?

            Abstract Advances in DNA sequencing technology have revolutionized the field of molecular analysis of trophic interactions, and it is now possible to recover counts of food DNA sequences from a wide range of dietary samples. But what do these counts mean? To obtain an accurate estimate of a consumer's diet should we work strictly with data sets summarizing frequency of occurrence of different food taxa, or is it possible to use relative number of sequences? Both approaches are applied to obtain semi‐quantitative diet summaries, but occurrence data are often promoted as a more conservative and reliable option due to taxa‐specific biases in recovery of sequences. We explore representative dietary metabarcoding data sets and point out that diet summaries based on occurrence data often overestimate the importance of food consumed in small quantities (potentially including low‐level contaminants) and are sensitive to the count threshold used to define an occurrence. Our simulations indicate that using relative read abundance (RRA) information often provides a more accurate view of population‐level diet even with moderate recovery biases incorporated; however, RRA summaries are sensitive to recovery biases impacting common diet taxa. Both approaches are more accurate when the mean number of food taxa in samples is small. The ideas presented here highlight the need to consider all sources of bias and to justify the methods used to interpret count data in dietary metabarcoding studies. We encourage researchers to continue addressing methodological challenges and acknowledge unanswered questions to help spur future investigations in this rapidly developing area of research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ejvest@utu.fi
                thomas.lilley@helsinki.fi
                Journal
                Ecol Evol
                Ecol Evol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7758
                ECE3
                Ecology and Evolution
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7758
                12 October 2018
                November 2018
                : 8
                : 22 ( doiID: 10.1002/ece3.2018.8.issue-22 )
                : 10914-10937
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Biodiversity Unit University of Turku Turku Finland
                [ 2 ] Department of Agricultural Sciences University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
                [ 3 ] Department of Biology University of Turku Turku Finland
                [ 4 ] Institute of Integrative Biology University of Liverpool Liverpool UK
                [ 5 ] Finnish Museum of Natural History University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Eero J. Vesterinen, Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.

                Email: ejvest@ 123456utu.fi

                and

                Thomas M. Lilley, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

                Email: thomas.lilley@ 123456helsinki.fi

                [†]

                Equal contribution to the article

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3665-5802
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5864-4958
                Article
                ECE34559
                10.1002/ece3.4559
                6262732
                30519417
                6f1f2239-aecd-424f-a1d9-baec73b46115
                © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 June 2018
                : 28 August 2018
                : 29 August 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 6, Pages: 24, Words: 22664
                Funding
                Funded by: Emil Aaltosen Säätiö
                Funded by: H2020 Marie Skłodowska‐Curie Actions
                Funded by: Jane ja Aatos Erkon Säätiö
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                ece34559
                November 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.3 mode:remove_FC converted:29.11.2018

                Evolutionary Biology
                chiroptera,dietary analysis,metabarcoding,prey size,resource partitioning
                Evolutionary Biology
                chiroptera, dietary analysis, metabarcoding, prey size, resource partitioning

                Comments

                Comment on this article