Abstract
Interspecific interactions are key drivers in structuring animal communities. Sympatric animals may show such behavioural patterns as the differential use of space and/or time to avoid competitive encounters. We took advantage of the ecological conditions of our study area, inhabited by different ungulate species, to investigate the spatial and temporal distribution of Capreolus capreolus, Dama dama and Sus scrofa. We estimated intraspecific interaction arising from the concomitant use of resources by using camera trapping. We collected 2741 videos with the three ungulates, which showed peculiar activity patterns. The three species were observed in all the habitat types of the study area over the four seasons, thus highlighting an evident spatial overlap. Moreover, our analysis demonstrated that the three species did not avoid each other through temporal segregation of their activities, rather showing a high overlap of daily activity rhythms, though with differences among the species and the seasons. Despite the high spatial and temporal overlap, the three species seemed to adopt segregation through fine-scale spatial avoidance: at an hourly level, the proportion of sites where the species were observed together was relatively low. This spatio-temporal segregation revealed complex and alternative behavioural strategies, which likely facilitated intra-guild sympatry among the studied species. Both temporal and spatio-temporal overlap reached the highest values in summer, when environmental conditions were more demanding. Given these results, we may presume that different drivers (e.g. temperature, human disturbance), which are likely stronger than interspecific interactions, affected activity rhythms and fine-scale spatial use of the studied species.
Highlights
Interspecific interactions are key drivers in structuring animal communities (e.g. Gause 1934; Hutchinson 1959) and may affect distribution, resource use, behaviour and population dynamics of interacting species (Sinclair and NortonGriffiths 1982; Putman and Putman 1996; Forsyth and Hickling 1998; Latham 1999; Murray and Illius 2000)
The three species were observed in all the habitat types of the study area over the four seasons of our data collection, highlighting an evident spatial overlap
Our results showed that the three species did not avoid each other by means of temporal segregation of their activities as their daily activity rhythms highly overlapped
Summary
Interspecific interactions are key drivers in structuring animal communities (e.g. Gause 1934; Hutchinson 1959) and may affect distribution, resource use, behaviour and population dynamics of interacting species (Sinclair and NortonGriffiths 1982; Putman and Putman 1996; Forsyth and Hickling 1998; Latham 1999; Murray and Illius 2000). Interspecific interactions are key drivers in structuring animal communities At least four types of interactions were described (Krebs 1985): two positive (mutualism and commensalism) and two negative (predation and competition). Competitive interactions may occur at both spatial and temporal levels. Sympatric animals may show such behavioural patterns as the differential use of space and/or time to avoid competitive encounters (Karanth and Sunquist 1995; Durant 1998). Subordinate competitors may avoid locations in which activity levels and/or population density of dominant species are high (Sherry 1979). Species may adapt their circadian activity patterns to reduce temporal activity overlaps (Carothers et al 1984)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.