Abstract
Similar, coexisting species often segregate along the spatial ecological axis. Here, we examine if two top predators (jaguars and pumas) present different fine-scale habitat use in areas of coexistence, and discuss if the observed pattern can be explained by the risk of interference competition between them. Interference competition theory predicts that pumas should avoid habitats or areas used by jaguars (the dominant species), and as a consequence should present more variability of niche parameters across study areas. We used non-invasive genetic sampling of faeces in 12 different areas and sensor satellite fine-scale habitat indices to answer these questions. Meta-analysis confirmed differences in fine-scale habitat use between jaguars and pumas. Furthermore, average marginality of the realized niches of pumas was more variable than those of jaguars, and tolerance (a measure of niche breadth) was on average 2.2 times higher in pumas than in jaguars, as expected under the interference competition risk hypothesis. The use of sensor satellite fine-scale habitat indices allowed the detection of subtle differences in the environmental characteristics of the habitats used by these two similar top predators, which, as a rule, until now were recorded using the same general habitat types. The detection of fine spatial segregation between these two top predators was scale-dependent.
Highlights
Competition among species is a key force shaping community structure
Effect sizes on productivity indices of the areas considered as being used by pumas and jaguars for the 12 study areas were only significantly different from zero in two out of 12 areas for meanEVIi, in one area for meanEVIcv, two areas for meanRVIrrel, two areas for rEVIvec, no area for cvEVIi, three areas for meanEVImin, and one area for meanEVImax (S2 Fig)
Considering all the variables together, meta-analysis found that jaguars and pumas segregated by 0.318 standard deviations in fine-scale habitat use
Summary
It has long been recognised that similar coexisting species must present mechanisms that decrease potential competition between them to avoid resource depletion (exploitative competition) or the risk of being injured or killed (interference competition; [1,2,3,4]). This fact is evident when the potential for intraguild predation (i.e., an extreme form of interference competition; [5]) is high between species belonging to the same ecological assemblage [5, 6]. Predators can affect individual fitness, as well as population and community processes, through lethal or non-lethal effects, and behavioural or ecological compensation for predation risk should occur [6, 7].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
