Loading…
Habitat partitioning of two closely related pond frogs, Pelophylax nigromaculatus and Pelophylax porosus brevipodus, during their breeding season
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 inve...
Saved in:
Published in: | Evolutionary ecology 2020-10, Vol.34 (5), p.855-866 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | 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). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0269-7653 1573-8477 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10682-020-10061-1 |