BIOTROPICA 0(0): 1–10 2017
10.1111/btp.12474
Does sex matter? Gender-specific responses to forest fragmentation in Neotropical
bats
Lo
pez-Baucells1,2,4,5
Ricardo Rocha1,2,3,8,*
, Diogo F. Ferreira1,2,*
, Adria
Jorge M. Palmeirim1,2, and Christoph F. J. Meyer1,2,5
bio Z. Farneda1,2,6, Joa
~ o M. B. Carreiras7,
, Fa
1
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal
2
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project, National Institute for Amazonian Research and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
69011-970, Manaus, Brazil
3
Metapopulation Research Centre, Faculty of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland
4
Museum of Natural Sciences of Granollers, Granollers, Catalonia, 08402, Spain
5
Ecosystems and Environment Research Centre (EERC), School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, M5 4WT, Salford,
UK
6
Department of Ecology/PPGE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-902, Brazil
7
National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), University of Sheffield, S3 7RH, Sheffield, UK
ABSTRACT
Understanding the consequences of habitat modification on wildlife communities is central to the development of conservation strategies. However, albeit male and female individuals of numerous species are known to exhibit differences in habitat use, sex-specific
responses to habitat modification remain little explored. Here, we used a landscape-scale fragmentation experiment to assess, separately
for males and females, the effects of fragmentation on the abundance of Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio, two widespread
Neotropical frugivorous bats. We predicted that sex-specific responses would arise from higher energetic requirements from pregnancy
and lactation in females. Analyses were conducted independently for each season, and we further investigated the joint responses to local
and landscape-scale metrics of habitat quality, composition, and configuration. Although males and females responded similarly to a
fragmentation gradient composed by continuous forest, fragment interiors, edges, and matrix habitats, we found marked differences
between sexes in habitat use for at least one of the seasons. Whereas the sex ratio varied little in continuous forest and fragment interiors, females were found to be more abundant than males in edge and matrix habitats. This difference was more prominent in the dry
season, the reproductive season of both species. For both species, abundance responses to local- and landscape-scale predictors differed
between sexes and again, differences were more pronounced in the dry season. The results suggest considerable sex-mediated responses
to forest disruption and degradation in tropical bats and complement our understanding of the impacts of fragmentation on tropical
forest vertebrate communities.
Abstract in Portuguese is available with online material.
Key words: Amazon; edge effects; intraspecific variation; matrix; seasonality; secondary forest; sex differences; spatial scale; vegetation structure.
A
RAPIDLY GROWING HUMAN POPULATION AND INCREASING PER CAP-
ITA CONSUMPTION ARE LEADING TO WIDESPREAD CONVERSION AND
DEGRADATION OF NATURAL HABITATS, FURTHER EXACERBATING THE
ALREADY PRECARIOUS STATUS OF THE PLANET’S ECOSYSTEMS (Newbold
et al. 2016). Habitat fragmentation and degradation rank among
the most serious threats responsible for the current biodiversity
crisis (Haddad et al. 2015, Barlow et al. 2016) and their impacts
are of particular concern in the mega-diverse tropical forests,
home to most of the planet’s terrestrial species (Malhi et al. 2014).
Understanding species patterns of habitat use and how local
habitat quality, as well as landscape composition and
Received 5 January 2017; revision accepted 18 April 2017.
*Both authors have contributed equally.
Corresponding author; e-mail: ricardo.nature@gmail.com
8
configuration, interact to shape communities in fragmented landscapes is paramount to framing effective conservation strategies
(Villard & Metzger 2014). However, within the thriving fragmentation literature, intraspecific differences in species responses to
local and landscape-scale characteristics have received little attention. Among those, sex-specific responses have been particularly
neglected, despite their overwhelming importance for the dynamics and long-term persistence of natural communities (Frank et al.
2016).
Accounting for differences between sexes in the evaluation
of animal responses to anthropogenic pressures is important as
males and females may differ, sometimes greatly, in key features
of their biology such as parental care (e.g., Lucass et al. 2016),
anti-predator-behavior (e.g., Curlis et al. 2016), habitat selection
(e.g., Penado et al. 2015), and physiological responses to stress
ª 2017 The Authors. Biotropica published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1
2
Rocha et al.
levels (e.g., Small & Schoech 2015). These dissimilarities can
translate into differential susceptibility to fragmentation between
sexes and consequently result in locally skewed sex ratios, potentially leading to greater extinction risks (Le Galliard et al. 2005,
Melbourne & Hastings 2008).
Sexual dimorphism is rare among bats, the second most
diverse mammalian order (Altringham 2011). However, genderspecific differences in attributes such as aggressiveness toward
conspecifics (Ancillotto & Russo 2014), prey composition (Mata
et al. 2016), and selection of roosting and foraging areas (Downs
et al. 2016, Istvanko et al. 2016) have been reported for numerous species of mostly temperate bats. Yet, notwithstanding some
notable exceptions (e.g., Evelyn & Stiles 2003, Henry & Kalko
2007, Henry et al. 2007, Frank et al. 2016, Orr et al. 2016), differences between sexes in their tropical counterparts remain largely
unexplored. However, these differences should be commonplace
as tropical bats must also balance their sex-specific energy
requirements with the spatiotemporal variability of resources and
the compositional and configurational heterogeneity of the landscape (Cisneros et al. 2015a, Ferreira et al. 2017).
The reproductive phenology of many tropical bats is
strongly correlated with environmental conditions and resource
availability (Ramos Pereira et al. 2010, Durant et al. 2013). Still,
despite timing their life cycle to match periods of peak food
availability, female bats may be constrained by the elevated energetic requirements associated with pregnancy and lactation, which
might force them to alter their foraging time budgets and limit
their habitat use to the most resource-rich areas (Lintott et al.
2014). Although habitat quality might not be as critical to males
and non-breeding females (Cryan et al. 2000, Senior et al. 2005,
Henry & Kalko 2007), the former might be affected by higher
intra-specific competition, leading to the displacement of poorly
competitive same-sex juveniles from resource-rich habitats (Henry
et al. 2007).
Tropical bats, like numerous other taxa, are affected by fragmentation and habitat degradation (Meyer et al. 2016). Their
responses have been found to be scale-sensitive, highly speciesand ensemble-specific and to vary according to seasonal variation
in resource abundance (Cisneros et al. 2015a, Arroyo-Rodrıguez
et al. 2016, Chambers et al. 2016, Mendes et al. 2016, Ferreira
et al. 2017, Rocha et al. 2017a). Matrix type and condition impose
influential filters on their local assemblages (Mendenhall et al.
2014, Farneda et al. 2015, Rodrıguez-San Pedro & Simonetti
2015) and local-scale vegetation structure influences species’
occurrence and abundance by constraining flight and access to
food resources (Marciente et al. 2015). However, no study has yet
investigated how male and female bats differ in their responses
to local and landscape-scale characteristics in fragmented
landscapes.
Here, we investigated how the abundance of male and
female bats of two of the most common Central Amazonian
bats, Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio, differs along a
disturbance gradient composed of continuous primary forest,
fragment interiors, forest edges, and secondary forest matrix habitats. In addition, for both species, we examined how male and
female abundance is influenced by vegetation structure (localscale variable) and, for five spatial scales (250, 500, 750, 1000,
and 1500 m), by landscape composition and configuration. We
hypothesized that sex ratio would change across the disturbance
gradient due to the increased energetic demands of females
associated with pregnancy and lactation, and we predicted that
capture rate of female bats during the peak reproductive periods
would be particularly high in secondary forest due to increased
fruit availability. Due to the expectation that sex-specific differences in habitat use reflect seasonal variation in resource availability, we conducted separate analyses for the wet and dry seasons.
We anticipated that since reproduction imposes high fluctuations
in energetic demands, female–male consistency in the responses
of C. perspicillata and R. pumilio to local and landscape-scale characteristics would vary between dry and wet seasons. Specifically,
since the peak pregnancy period of both species in our study area
occurs in the dry season (Bernard 2002), we predicted that
females, due to higher energetic demands associated with pregnancy, would respond more strongly to compositional metrics
(and hence fruit availability) in the dry season, whereas males
would present similar responses to local and landscape-scale attributes in both the dry and wet seasons.
METHODS
STUDY AREA.—Fieldwork took place at the Biological Dynamics
of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP), a whole-ecosystem fragmentation experiment located ~80 km north of Manaus (2°250 S,
59°500 W), Brazilian Amazon (Fig. S1) (Laurance et al. 2011). The
landscape is characterized by a mosaic of continuous terra firme
forest and primary forest fragments surrounded by a matrix of
secondary forest. Primary forest canopy is 30–37 m tall, with
emergent trees up to 55 m (Laurance et al. 2011). Annual rainfall
in the region ranges from 1900 to 3500 mm, with a wet season
from November to June (precipitation can exceed 300/mo) and a
dry season from July to November (precipitation below 100/mo).
Flowering is concentrated in the transition between dry and wet
seasons and fruiting peaks at the onset of the wet season (Haugaasen & Peres 2007, Bentos et al. 2014). Eleven experimental
primary forest fragments categorized into size classes of 1, 10,
and 100 ha were isolated in the early 1980s by clearing and, in
some cases, also burning the surrounding forest. Fragment distance from continuous forest ranges from 80 to 650 m, and each
was re-isolated on three to four occasions prior to this study,
most recently between 1999 and 2001 (Laurance et al. 2011). The
matrix is composed by secondary forests in different successional
stages (Carreiras et al. 2014) and is dominated mainly by Vismia
spp. and Cecropia spp. (Mesquita et al. 2015).
BAT SAMPLING.—Sampling was conducted in eight forest fragments (three of 1 ha, three of 10 ha, and two of 100 ha) and
nine control sites in three areas of continuous forest (Fig. S1).
Bat mist netting took place in the interiors and at the edges of all
eight fragments, as well as at eight sites in the adjacent secondary
forest matrix, 100 m from the edge of each fragment. A similar
Sex-specific Responses to Fragmentation in Bats
sampling scheme was adopted in continuous forest, whereby nine
sites were sampled in the interior, three at the edge, and three in
the secondary forest matrix, 100 m from the forest edge.
Accordingly, a total of 39 sites were sampled. Distances between
interior and edge sites of continuous forest and fragments were,
respectively, 1118 488 and 245 208 m (mean SD).
Bats were sampled during the dry (July to November 2011
and 2012; two visits each year) and wet seasons (February to
June 2012 and 2013; two visits each year) using 14 ground-level
mist nets (12 9 3 m, 16 mm mesh, ECOTONE, Poland) in
continuous forest and fragment interiors and seven at edge and
matrix sites. Mist netting was limited to days with no strong rain
or wind, and, for each survey round, visits to the interior, edge,
and matrix sites of continuous forest and forest fragments were
kept as close apart as logistically feasible. Sampling started at
dusk and nets was left open for 6 hours, being revised every
~20 min. Capture effort was 10,726 mist-net hours (mnh) in the
wet season and 7924 mnh in the dry season (1 mnh equals one
12-m net open for 1 h). Bias in capture rates due to net shyness
was avoided by spacing same-site surveys 3–4 weeks apart (Marques et al. 2013). Species identification followed Lim and
Engstrom (2001) and Gardner (2007) and taxonomy follows the
latter. For each captured individual, age was determined by examination of the extent of ossification in the epiphyses of the phalanges and, in the case of adult females, the reproductive state
was recorded by palpation (pregnant vs. non-pregnant) and evidence of hair loss around the mamma and milk (lactating vs.
non-lactating). All non-phyllostomid species other than Pteronotus
parnellii are poorly sampled with mist nets (Kalko 1998) and
were, therefore, excluded from the analyses. For the purpose of
this article, we further restricted the analysis to the two species
with more than 30 captured adult bats for each sex and season,
Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio. Imperfect species detection can introduce bias into estimates of species occurrence and
abundance. We minimized any potential detectability-related
biases by (1) focusing on these two abundant understory frugivores which are well-sampled with ground-level mist nets and
have been shown to have high detection probabilities even with
just two successive site visits (Meyer et al. 2011), and by (2) formally including season—an important detection covariate (cf.
Meyer et al. 2011)—in our analysis (see below).
FEMALE–MALE ABUNDANCE ACROSS THE INTERIOR-EDGE-MATRIX
GRADIENT.—Differences in abundance between sexes, seasons
(dry and wet), and habitat types (interior, edge, and matrix) were
assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs).
For each species, the number of captured individuals was used as
response variable (Poisson distribution, log-link function) and sex,
season, and habitat type were specified as fixed, interacting
effects. Due to the high model complexity when implementing a
three-way interaction, we decided to instead use two-way interactions between sex and habitat type for each season separately.
Reflecting our nested sampling design and to account for potential autocorrelation between sites within the same location, models included a random term nesting ‘site’ within ‘location’ (the
3
latter referring to the six research camps at the BDFFP; Fig. S1).
Each site’s total capture effort (log number of mnh) was incorporated as a model offset. Significant effects were evaluated for
each species via likelihood-ratio tests and multiple comparison
tests with Tukey contrasts (adjusted P values reported) in the R
package ‘multcomp’ (Hothorn et al. 2014).
FEMALE–MALE RESPONSES TO LOCAL AND LANDSCAPE-SCALE
VARIABLES.—Vegetation structure.—Vegetation structure was quantified within three 100 m2 (5 9 20 m) plots established 5 m from
each side of the mist net transects. In each plot, the following
variables were quantified: (1) diameter at breast height (dbh); (2)
percent canopy cover; (3) number of woody stems (dbh <10 cm);
(4) number of trees (dbh ≥ 10 cm); (5) number of palms; (6)
number of lianas; (7) number of pioneer trees (genera Vismia and
Cecropia); (8) tree height; and (9) vertical foliage density. Since our
interest was in the general structure of the vegetation and not in
the particular contribution of any of the different vegetation variables quantified, we submitted the vegetation variables to a principal components analysis (PCA). The score values for the first
axis (PCA1—explaining 42% of the total variance and representing a gradient from simpler vegetation structure, typical of secondary forests [negative values] to more complex vegetation
structure, typical of primary forest [positive values]) were subsequently used as predictor variable for local vegetation structure
(LVS). Details regarding the quantification of the vegetation variables and PCA analysis are given in Rocha et al. (2017a).
LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION AND CONFIGURATION.—Landscape metrics
were obtained from a land cover map of the BDFFP landscape
from 2011. The map was based on the analysis of a quasi-annual
time series of Landsat Thematic Mapper data (30-m resolution)
from the 1970s up to 2011 (Carreiras et al. 2014). For this study,
the map was classified into four land cover types, representing:
(1) continuous primary forest; (2) early-stage secondary forest
(≤5 yr); (3) intermediate-stage secondary forest (6–15 yr); and (4)
advanced-stage secondary forest (≥16 yr) (see Carreiras et al.
2014 for classification details) (Fig. S2). Selection of metrics of
landscape composition and configuration was based on previous
analyses of bat–environment relationships (Meyer & Kalko 2008,
Klingbeil & Willig 2009, 2010, Avila-Cabadilla et al. 2012, Cisneros et al. 2015b, Arroyo-Rodrıguez et al. 2016, Rocha et al.
2017a), and metrics were computed for landscape buffers with
radii of 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 1500 m surrounding each of
the 39 sampling sites. These buffer sizes were chosen as they
encompass the home ranges of different-sized bat species and at
the same time minimize buffer overlap (Meyer & Kalko 2008).
Apart from mean nearest neighbor distance (calculated using the
software QGIS), the following metrics were calculated using the
R package ‘SDMtools’ (Vanderwal et al. 2011) to represent: (A)
landscape composition (primary forest cover [PFC], secondary
forest cover—initial stage [SFC1], intermediate stage [SFC2], and
advanced stage [SFC3]) and (B) landscape configuration (edge
density [ED], patch density [PD], mean nearest neighbor distance
[MNND], and mean shape index [MSI]). Following McGarigal
4
Rocha et al.
(2014), MNND was calculated as the mean of the shortest
straight-line distance between the sampling site and each of its
nearest neighbors of the same class. When a given buffer contained only one patch of primary forest, we calculated MNND as
the distance between that patch and the nearest one in the next
larger buffer. See Table S1 for detailed description of landscape
metrics.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL AND LANDSCAPE PREDICTORS.—
Independently for each sex and season, we examined the relative
importance of local vegetation structure and landscape-scale metrics in affecting species abundance at the five focal spatial scales
using Poisson GLMMs. The number of captures at each site was
used as response variable and, as above, ‘site’ nested within ‘location’ was included as a random term, and log(effort) was included
as an offset. Multicollinearity between predictor variables was
investigated by calculating (1) variance inflation factors (VIF) and
ii) pairwise Pearson correlations. ‘Severe’ collinearity is present
when VIFs >10 (Neter et al. 1996); therefore, following Benchimol and Peres (2015), we considered variables with VIF ≤6 suitable to be included in the analyses. However, we found that
variables with VIF <6 differed between spatial scales and the
same was found for correlation values with the Pearson r > 0.6.
We consequently dismissed these analyses as the selection of distinct predictors for different buffer sizes would preclude meaningful comparisons between scales. As such, we opted to include
all the predictor variables in our GLMMs. Although this can lead
to some multicollinearity and consequently jeopardize statistical
inference (Dormann et al. 2013), we consider that each predictor
represents a particular avenue of interaction between ecological
mechanisms and bat abundances, and, consequently, omission of
predictor variables at a given spatial scale could undermine the
estimates of the relative importance for the remaining predictors
(Smith et al. 2009).
For each species, sex, and spatial scale, separate sets of candidate models were chosen a priori, comprising plausible combinations of local vegetation structure and landscape predictors.
The following models were considered (1) all predictors; (2) each
predictor individually; (3) local vegetation structure and landscape
composition predictors; (4) local vegetation structure and landscape configuration predictors; (5) composition and configuration
predictors; (6) composition predictors only; (7) configuration predictors only; (8) secondary forest cover predictors only; (9) local
vegetation structure and secondary forest cover predictors; (10)
all predictors without secondary forest cover predictors; and (11)
all predictors without primary forest cover predictor. GLMMs
were fitted in the ‘lme4’ package in R (Bates 2010), and selection
of the best-fit models was performed through Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc). Model
averaging, conducted in the ‘AICcmodavg’ package (Mazerolle
2016), was used to obtain parameter estimates for the predictors
when multiple models had a ∆AICc ≤ 2 (Burnham & Anderson
2002). Moran’s I tests were used to assess potential spatial autocorrelation of the residuals of our best-fit GLMMs. In addition,
potential problems with overdispersion were evaluated based on
the appropriate v2 distribution of the ratio between the sum of
squared Pearson residuals and the residual degrees of freedom
(Bolker et al. 2009). For these best-fit models, the relative importance of each predictor was determined through hierarchical partitioning analysis using the ‘hier.part’ package (Walsh et al. 2013),
modified to include ‘log(effort)’ as a model offset (Jeppsson et al.
2010). Following Benchimol and Peres (2015) and Rocha et al.
(2015), hierarchical partitioning analysis was conducted considering only the fixed effects.
For each species and independently for each season, the
consistency between predictor variables included in the best models for each sex was calculated via a model consistency index
(Gutzwiller & Barrow 2001). This was computed as the number
of common predictors with the same direction of effect for each
sex in each season, divided by the total number of predictors
included in the best-fit models. High between-sex variation in
species–environment relationship stands for low model consistency and vice versa.
All analyses were conducted in R v.3.1.3 software (R Development Core Team 2013).
RESULTS
We captured a total of 3431 adult bats representing 44 species
(43 phyllostomids and 1 mormoopid, P. parnellii). Females comprised nearly two thirds (2097, 61.1%) of all captures (Table S2).
The female–male capture ratio averaged 1.42 (0.1, SD) across
the different habitat categories for the wet season and 1.83
(0.08) for the dry season.
Carollia perspicillata and R. pumilio represented, respectively, 50
and 12.2 percent of all captures and were the only two species
with more than 30 captures for each sex in the two seasons
(Table S2). For C. perspicillata, the female–male capture ratio averaged 1.32 (0.12, SD) for the wet season and 1.57 (0.37) for
the dry season, whereas for R. pumilio these figures were, respectively, 2.89 (0.95) and 1.4 (1.01). Carollia perspicillata displayed
a peak in pregnancy at the middle of the dry season and a second, slightly lower peak in the wet season. However, R. pumilio
only exhibited a peak in pregnancy in the dry season. For both
species, peaks in the capture of pregnant bats were followed by
peaks in lactating females (Fig. 1 and Table S3).
SEX
DIFFERENCES IN CAPTURE RATES ACROSS THE INTERIOR-EDGE-
MATRIX GRADIENT.—Both
species analyzed exhibited significant
effects for the interaction between sex and habitat type for the
dry and wet seasons (Table S4). However, for C. perspicillata, the
differences in the abundance of female and male bats were significant only for the dry season based on multiple pairwise comparisons (Fig. 2; Table S5). Female–male numbers varied especially
in edge and matrix habitats, where females tended to outnumber
males, with the difference being more pronounced in the dry
than in the wet season.
For C. perspicillata, significant differences between the number of captured females and males were restricted to the dry season, during which the capture rate of females was always higher
Sex-specific Responses to Fragmentation in Bats
5
than the capture rate of males in all habitats (Fig. 2). However,
for R. pumilio, females outnumbered males in the matrix during
the wet season and at both fragment edges and in the matrix in
the dry season.
SEX
DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES TO LOCAL- AND LANDSCAPE-SCALE
VARIABLES.—The
FIGURE 1. Female reproductive phenology of Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio. Proportions are based on the total number of pregnant or lactating females per total number of adult females captured in each month
between July 2011 and June 2013 (note that data are missing for December
and January). Background colors: blue, wet season; red, dry season.
relative importance of vegetation structure and
compositional and configurational landscape characteristics differed between sexes for both C. perspicillata and R. pumilio (Figs. 3
and 4; Tables S6 and S7). None of the GLMMs showed signs of
overdispersion (Table S8) or yielded spatially autocorrelated residuals (Table S9), and for both species, model consistency was
higher in the wet season (71.4% C. perspicillata; 16.7% R. pumilio)
than in the dry season (22.2% C. perspicillata; 0% R. pumilio).
For C. perspicillata, female abundance in the dry season was
nearly exclusively dictated by the amount of PFC, to which the
response was negative across all scales. Configurational metrics
had no influence at the smallest scales (250 and 500 m) and only
patch density was shown to negatively affect abundance at the
largest scales (≥750 m). For males during the dry season, the
influence of vegetation structure and configurational metrics was
almost negligible. They were less influenced by PFC, but instead
responded more strongly to the amount of secondary forest
cover, especially, at larger spatial scales (≥750 m) to SFC3. During the wet season, females showed a negative response toward
local vegetation structure across all scales and to PFC, patch density and mean shape index at intermediate scales (500, 750, and
1000 m). For these scales, however, the responses to edge density
were positive. During this season, male responses nearly mirrored
those of females (Fig. 3).
For R. pumilio, female abundance during the dry season was
nearly exclusively related to local vegetation structure across all
scales (negative association). By contrast, male responses were all
neutral apart from edge density at the smallest scale, for which
the response was positive. During the wet season, local vegetation
structure was again the metric with more relevance for females,
negatively influencing abundance across all scales. For males, local
vegetation structure had also a negative influence, but its relevance slightly decreased with increasing scale. The opposite was
true, albeit the direction of the effect was positive, for SFC3 for
which there was an increase in predictor relevance from smaller
to larger scales (Fig. 4).
DISCUSSION
FIGURE 2. Variation in mean ( 95% CI) capture rate (bats/mnh) of males
and females Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio across different habitat
types in the BDFFP landscape in the dry and wet seasons. Significant differences in capture rates between sexes are indicated as ***P < 0.001,
**P < 0.01, and *P < 0.05.
Despite the relatively low structural contrast between the
advanced secondary vegetation matrix and the adjacent
continuous forest, bats at the BDFFP exhibit pronounced assemblage- and ensemble-level responses to interior-edge-matrix fragmentation gradients and local and landscape-scale attributes
(Rocha et al. 2017a). These responses reflect strong environmental filters that selectively benefit species with specific functional
traits associated with reduced fragmentation sensitivity (Farneda
et al. 2015) and that are modulated by seasonal fluctuations in
resource availability (Ferreira et al. 2017). Here, we show that in
6
Rocha et al.
FIGURE 3. Summary results of model averaging of the best-fit generalized linear mixed models (Akaike differences <2 from the best model) exploring the association between local and landscape-scale predictors and the abundance of male and female Carollia perspicillata at five focal scales across the BDFFP. Symbol size
is proportional to the variation explained by the respective predictor variable based on hierarchical partitioning. Color denotes the direction of the relationship:
black = positive; white = negative; gray = neutral (based on the unconditional 95% CIs). LVS, local vegetation structure; PFC, primary forest cover; SFC1, initial
secondary forest cover; SFC2, intermediate secondary forest cover; SFC3, advanced secondary forest cover; ED, edge density; PD, patch density; MNND, mean
nearest neighbor distance; MSI, mean shape index. Vertical dotted lines separate vegetation structure, compositional, and configurational metrics. See Tables S6
and S7 for additional modeling results.
addition to being trait-mediated and season-modulated, responses
of Neotropical bats to fragmentation are sex-specific. Even
though our analysis was restricted to two of the locally most
abundant frugivorous bat species in our study area, C. perspicillata
and R. pumilio, it is likely that our findings are more generally
applicable to a wide range of species.
FEMALE–MALE RESPONSES TO THE INTERIOR-EDGE-MATRIX
GRADIENT.—Capture rates of C. perspicillata, the most abundant
phyllostomid species at the BDFFP, were higher for females than
males during the dry season at edges and matrix sites and, to a
lesser extent, in continuous forest and fragment interiors. During
the reproductive period, female bats face higher energetic
demands than males (Barclay 1991), and for C. perspicillata, the
most prominent pregnancy peak occurs during the dry season,
whereas lactation peaks during the wet season (Bernard 2002,
Durant et al. 2013). To compensate for increased energetic
demands, females might forage preferentially in the most
resource-rich areas (Barclay 1991, Encarnacß~ao et al. 2005), especially in the dry season during which fruit availability is lower
(Ramos Pereira et al. 2010). Similar to other studies across the
species’ distribution (e.g., Mello et al. 2004, Durant et al. 2013), we
have identified a second reproductive peak, of somewhat weaker
intensity, in the wet season. Since this second peak takes place in
the season of highest fruit availability (Ramos Pereira et al. 2010),
it is unlikely to affect male–female ratios as much as the more
pronounced reproductive peak in the dry season. Early successional gap species of the genus Piper, the preferred food resource
of C. perspicillata (Horsley et al. 2015) produce 2–10 times more
fruits than shade tolerant or late successional forest species (Thies
& Kalko 2004). The greater proportion of females in edge and
matrix habitats might, therefore, reflect a shift by pregnant
females toward foraging in these areas of increased food availability. In addition, Cecropia and Vismia spp., whose fruits are also
favored by C. perspicillata (Horsley et al. 2015), are abundant in
the secondary forest matrix at the BDFFP (Bentos et al. 2008),
further justifying the more accentuated female-biased sex ratios at
edges and matrix sites. Piper, Cecropia, and Vismia fruits are nutritionally poor, and thus bats that rely on these genera must consume large fruit quantities to meet their dietary needs (Fleming
1986). Augmented capture rates of female C. perspicillata in late
successional forest during the peak pregnancy period in the dry
season might, therefore, reflect increased foraging movements
associated with higher energetic demands and lower fruit availability.
Rhinophylla pumilio, similarly to C. perspicillata, belongs to the
subfamily Carolliinae and is one of the most locally abundant bat
species across the Amazon (Rinehart & Kunz 2006). The species’
diet is highly variable but consists primarily of small-seeded
understory and mid-canopy fruits of several pioneer plants
including Vismia, Piper, and Cecropia spp. (Rinehart & Kunz 2006,
Horsley et al. 2015). At the BDFFP, peak pregnancy occurs during the dry season (Bernard 2002, this study), and during this
season, the capture rate of females was nearly three times higher
than for males at Vismia and Cecropia-dominated edge and matrix
sites. In the matrix, the sex ratio was also female-biased during
the wet season. This might relate to increased foraging movements into resource-rich secondary forest areas to compensate
for the elevated energetic burden associated with pregnancy and
milk production during the dry season.
Sex-specific Responses to Fragmentation in Bats
7
FIGURE 4. Summary results of model averaging of the best-fit generalized linear mixed models (Akaike differences <2 from the best model) exploring the association between local and landscape-scale predictors and the abundance of male and female Rhinophylla pumilio at five focal scales across the BDFFP. Symbol size
is proportional to the variation explained by the respective predictor variable based on hierarchical partitioning. Color denotes the direction of the relationship:
black = positive; white = negative; gray = neutral (based on the unconditional 95% CIs). Abbreviations: see legend to Fig. 3. See Tables S6 and S7 for additional
modeling results.
MALE–FEMALE RESPONSES TO THE INFLUENCE OF LOCAL- AND
LANDSCAPE-SCALE VARIABLES.—Females and males of both C. perspicillata and R. pumilio demonstrated discernible differences in their
response to local-scale vegetation structure and landscape composition and configuration, as indicated by the results of model consistency between sexes. Similarity in male–female responses was
lower for the dry season, the period of highest reproductive activity for both species at the BDFFP (Bernard 2002, this study).
During the dry season, compositional metrics were the best
predictors of both male and female responses of C. perspicillata.
However, while the responses of females were characterized by a
strong negative influence of PFC across all spatial scales, male
responses to PFC were negative at smaller scales (≤500 m) but were
then substituted by a positive response to SFC3 at larger scales.
These results show that females clearly favor the pioneer-rich secondary forests during the main reproductive period and that males,
while equally favoring matrix habitats, tend to select areas close to
late-stage successional forest. Telemetry observations from the
Atlantic forest show that C. perspicillata, while preferentially foraging
in early successional forests, preferably roosts in later successional
habitats (Trevelin et al. 2013). Male preference for sites with higher
cover of late-stage secondary forest might thus relate to increased
chances of female encounters as they return to their roosts or to
roost defense. The responses of male and female C. perspicillata to
compositional metrics in the wet season were similar to those
observed in the dry season, a pattern that might be explained by the
second reproductive activity peak exhibited in this season.
Responses of female R. pumilio were nearly exclusively related
with local vegetation structure, whereby the association was consistently negative across all scales examined and during both the
dry and wet seasons. Local vegetation structure as summarized by
PCA1 (see Rocha et al. 2017a, Fig. S2 and Table S3) reflects a
gradient from simpler structural complexity of the vegetation,
characteristic of secondary forest (greater density of Vismia spp.
and Cecropia spp. trees and woody stems; negative values), to
greater structural complexity, characteristic of primary forest sites
(more closed canopy and greater density of trees; positive values).
Consequently, a negative association with local vegetation structure indicates that more cluttered habitats are avoided. This negative association with local vegetation structure, although less
marked, was also found for male bats in the wet season. Due to
its small body size, R. pumilio (~9 g) incurs higher flight costs
compared to larger fruit-eating bats (Speakman & Thomas 2003).
Since flying in cluttered habitats is more energy demanding than
flying in more open areas (Grodzinski et al. 2009), the elevated
energetic costs associated with higher vegetation complexity might
represent a particularly high burden for females during pregnancy
and while nursing (dry season). During lactation, these energetic
costs might be further amplified due to the transportation of their
young since female R. pumilio often transport their pups to temporary night roosts across their foraging area (Henry & Kalko 2007).
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned response of female
R. pumilio toward local vegetation structure in the dry season, a
marked seasonal effect was observed in the response of male and
female bats to local-scale characteristics. This seems to suggest
that due to higher fruit availability during the wet season, both
male and female bats do not need to travel long distances for
foraging and consequently may respond predominantly to localscale habitat features.
The results of this study align with previous findings from
temperate areas, in which male and female bats differed in their
responses to local and landscape-scale metrics of habitat quality,
composition, and configuration in an urban setting (Lintott et al.
2014). They also agree with several telemetry studies providing
8
Rocha et al.
evidence for gender-specific differences in habitat use in Neotropical bats—e.g., preference of foraging areas closer to day roosts in
males than females (Meyer et al. 2005) or differential temporal distribution of activity between sexes (Thies et al. 2006). Yet, they contrast with recent findings from humanized forest landscapes in
Costa Rica for which no sex differences in habitat use were
observed (Frank et al. 2016).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that, at least for some species, male and
female bats respond to fragmentation in different ways and that
responses to local- and landscape-scale attributes are sex- and
season-specific. This has considerable implications for our understanding of how tropical species adapt to human-induced habitat
changes as modifications in population structure (sex ratio) can
act to diminish or magnify the pervasive consequences of forest
loss, fragmentation, and habitat deterioration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the multitude of volunteers and field assistants that
helped collecting data, the coordination team of the BDFFP and
Paulo E.D. Bobrowiec for logistic support, LBA program of Micrometeorology Group—INPA for providing the precipitation data,
and Tobias Jeppsson for providing a modified version of the hier.part function for the hierarchical partitioning analysis. Funding was
provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology to C.F.J.M. (PTDC/BIA-BIC/111184/2009), R.R. (SFRH/
BD/80488/2011), and A.L.-B. (PD/BD/52597/2014). F.Z.F. was
supported by a CAPES fellowship and J.M.B.C was funded as part
of NERC’s support of the National Centre for Earth Observation.
This research was conducted under ICMBio permit (26877-2) and
constitutes publication number 716 of the BDFFP technical series.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Data available from the Dryad Repository: https://doi.org/10.
5061/dryad.fs401 (Rocha et al. 2017b).
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the
supporting information tab for this article:
FIGURE S1. Map of the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP).
FIGURE S2. Map of the different successional stages of secondary forest at the BDFFP.
TABLE S1. Detailed description of landscape metrics used in the study.
TABLE S2. Number of captures of adult bats for each bat species
sampled.
TABLE S3. Number of male and female Carollia perspicillata and
Rhinophylla pumilio captured each month.
TABLE S4. Likelihood-ratio tests investigating the influence of sex,
habitat type, and season on abundance.
TABLE S5. Male and female abundance multiple pairwise comparisons.
TABLE S6. Most parsimonious models investigating relationships
between the abundance of male and female Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio and local and landscape-scale attributes.
TABLE S7. Model averaging of the best-fit models of the relationship
between the abundance of male and female Carollia perspicillata and Rhinophylla pumilio and local and landscape-scale attributes.
TABLE S8. Estimate of overdispersion of the best-fit GLMMs.
TABLE S9. Moran’s I test for the residuals of the most parsimonious
models.
LITERATURE CITED
ALTRINGHAM, J. D. 2011. Bats: From evolution to conservation. Oxford
University Press, New York.
ANCILLOTTO, L., AND D. RUSSO. 2014. Selective aggressiveness in European
free-tailed bats (Tadarida teniotis): influence of familiarity, age and sex.
Naturwissenschaften 101: 221–228.
~ -VAZQUEZ
ARROYO-RODRIGUEZ, V., C. ROJAS, R. A. SALDANA
, AND K. E.
STONER. 2016. Landscape composition is more important than landscape configuration for phyllostomid bat assemblages in a fragmented
biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Cons. 198: 84–92.
AVILA-CABADILLA, L. D., G. A. SANCHEZ-AZOFEIFA, K. E. STONER, M. Y.
ALVAREZ-ANORVE, M. QUESADA, AND C. A. PORTILLO-QUINTERO. 2012.
Local and landscape factors determining occurrence of phyllostomid
bats in tropical secondary forests. PLoS ONE 7: e35228.
BARCLAY, R. M. 1991. Population structure of temperate zone insectivorous
bats in relation to foraging behaviour and energy demand. J. Anim.
Ecol. 60: 165–178.
BARLOW, J., G. D. LENNOX, J. FERREIRA, E. BERENGUER, A. C. LEES, R. M.
NALLY, J. R. THOMSON, S. F. D. B. FERRAZ, J. LOUZADA, V. H. F. OLIVEIRA, L. PARRY, R. RIBEIRO DE CASTRO SOLAR, I. C. G. VIEIRA, L. E.
~ , R. A. BEGOTTI, R. F. BRAGA, T. M. CARDOSO, R. C. de
O. C. ARAGAO
OLIVEIRA Jr, C. M. SOUZA Jr, N. G. MOURA, S. S. NUNES, J. V.
SIQUEIRA, R. PARDINI, J. M. SILVEIRA, F. Z. VAZ-DE-MELLO, R. C. S.
VEIGA, A. VENTURIERI, AND T. A. GARDNER. 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535: 144–147.
BATES, D. M. 2010. lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. R package.
BENCHIMOL, M., AND C. A. PERES. 2015. Edge-mediated compositional and
functional decay of tree assemblages in Amazonian forest islands after
26 years of isolation. J. Ecol. 103: 408–420.
BENTOS, T. V., R. C. MESQUITA, J. L. CAMARGO, AND G. B. WILLIAMSON. 2014.
Seed and fruit tradeoffs–the economics of seed packaging in Amazon
pioneers. Plant Ecol. Divers 7: 371–382.
BENTOS, T. V., R. C. MESQUITA, AND G. B. WILLIAMSON. 2008. Reproductive
phenology of Central Amazon pioneer trees. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 1:
186–203.
BERNARD, E. 2002. Diet, activity and reproduction of bat species (Mammalia,
Chiroptera) in Central Amazonia, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Zool. 19: 173–
188.
BOLKER, B. M., M. E. BROOKS, C. J. CLARK, S. W. GEANGE, J. R. POULSEN, M.
H. H. STEVENS, AND J. S. S. WHITE. 2009. Generalized linear mixed
models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 24: 127–135.
BURNHAM, K. P., AND D. R. ANDERSON. 2002. Model selection and inference.
Springer, New York, New York.
CARREIRAS, J. M. B., J. JONES, R. M. LUCAS, AND C. GABRIEL. 2014. Land use
and land cover change dynamics across the Brazilian Amazon: insights
from extensive time-series analysis of remote sensing data. PLoS
ONE 9: e104144.
Sex-specific Responses to Fragmentation in Bats
CHAMBERS, C. L., S. A. CUSHMAN, A. MEDINA-FITORIA, J. MARTINEZ-FONSECA,
AND M. CHAVEZ
-VELASQUEZ
. 2016. Influences of scale on bat habitat
relationships in a forested landscape in Nicaragua. Landsc. Ecol. 31:
1299–1318.
CISNEROS, L. M., M. E. FAGAN, AND M. R. WILLIG. 2015a. Season-specific and
guild-specific effects of anthropogenic landscape modification on
metacommunity structure of tropical bats. J. Anim. Ecol. 84: 373–
385.
CISNEROS, L. M., M. E. FAGAN, AND M. R. WILLIG. 2015b. Effects of humanmodified landscapes on taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic
dimensions of bat biodiversity. Divers. Distrib. 21: 523–533.
CRYAN, P. M., M. A. BORGAN, AND J. S. ALTENBACH. 2000. Effect of elevation
on distribution of female bats in the Black Hills, South Dakota. J.
Mammal. 81: 719–725.
CURLIS, J. D., D. C. MACKLEM, R. DAVIS, AND C. L. COX. 2016. Sex-specific
antipredator response to auditory cues in the black spiny-tailed iguana.
J. Zool. 299: 68–74.
DORMANN, C. F., J. ELITH, S. BACHER, C. BUCHMANN, G. CARL, G. CARRE , J. R.
~ , T. MUNKEM
€
€
G. MARQUE Z, B. GRUBER, B. LAFOURCADE, P. J. LEITAO
UL€
LER, C. MCCLEAN, P. E. OSBORNE, B. REINEKING, B. SCHRODER
, A. K.
SKIDMORE, D. ZURELL, AND S. LAUTENBACH. 2013. Collinearity: a review
of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36: 027–046.
DOWNS, N. C., W. J. CRESSWELL, P. REASON, G. SUTTON, D. WELLS, AND S.
WRAY. 2016. Sex-specific habitat preferences of foraging and commuting lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (Borkhausen, 1797) in
lowland England. Acta Chiropt. 18: 451–465.
DURANT, K. A., R. W. HALL, L. M. CISNEROS, R. M. HYLAND, AND M. R. WILLIG. 2013. Reproductive phenologies of phyllostomid bats in Costa
Rica. J. Mammal. 94: 1438–1448.
~ , J. A., U. KIERDORF, D. HOLWEG, U. JASNOCH, AND V. WOLTERS.
ENCARNACß AO
2005. Sex-related differences in roost-site selection by Daubenton’s
bats Myotis daubentonii during the nursery period. Mammal Rev. 35:
285–294.
EVELYN, M. J., AND D. A. STILES. 2003. Roosting Requirements of Two Frugivorous Bats (Sturnira lilium and Arbiteus intermedius) in Fragmented
Neotropical Forest. Biotropica 35: 405–418.
FARNEDA, F. Z., R. ROCHA, A. LOPEZ
-BAUCELLS, M. GROENENBERG, I. SILVA, J.
M. PALMEIRIM, P. E. D. BOBROWIEC, AND C. F. J. MEYER. 2015. Traitrelated responses to habitat fragmentation in Amazonian bats. J. Appl.
Ecol. 52: 1381–1391.
FERREIRA, D. F., R. ROCHA, A. LOPEZ
-BAUCELLS, F. Z. FARNEDA, J. M. B CARREIRAS, J. M. PALMEIRIM, AND C. F. J. MEYER. 2017. Season-modulated
responses of Neotropical bats to forest fragmentation. Ecol. Evol. 7:
4059–4071.
FLEMING, T. H. 1986. Opportunism versus specialization: the evolution of
feeding strategies in frugivorous bats. In A. Estrada, and T. H. Fleming (Eds.). Frugivores and seed dispersal, pp. 105–118. Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
FRANK, H. K., C. D. MENDENHALL, S. D. JUDSON, G. C. DAILY, AND E. A.
HADLY. 2016. Anthropogenic impacts on Costa Rican bat parasitism
are sex specific. Ecol. Evol. 6: 4898–4909.
GARDNER, A. 2007. Mammals of South America volume 1: Marsupials. Xenarthrans, shrews and bats. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
GRODZINSKI, U., O. SPIEGEL, C. KORINE, AND M. W. HOLDERIED. 2009. Context-dependent flight speed: evidence for energetically optimal flight
speed in the bat Pipistrellus kuhlii? J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 540–548.
GUTZWILLER, K. J., AND W. C. BARROW. 2001. Bird–landscape relations in the
Chihuahuan desert: coping with uncertainties about predictive models.
Ecol. Appl. 11: 1517–1532.
HADDAD, N. M., L. A. BRUDVIG, J. CLOBERT, K. F. DAVIES, A. GONZALEZ, R.
D. HOLT, T. E. LOVEJOY, J. O. SEXTON, M. P. AUSTIN, C. D. COLLINS,
W. M. COOK, E. I. DAMSCHEN, R. M. EWERS, B. L. FOSTER, C. N.
JENKINS, A. J. KING, W. F. LAURANCE, D. J. LEVEY, C. R. MARGULES, B.
A. MELBOURNE, A. O. NICHOLLS, J. L. ORROCK, D.-X. SONG, AND J. R.
9
TOWNSHEND. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on
Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1: e1500052.
HAUGAASEN, T., AND C. A. PERES. 2007. Vertebrate responses to fruit production in Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Biodivers. Conserv.
16: 4165–4190.
HENRY, M., J.-F. COSSON, AND J.-M. PONS. 2007. Abundance may be a misleading indicator of fragmentation-sensitivity: the case of fig-eating bats.
Biol. Cons. 139: 462–467.
HENRY, M., AND E. K. V. KALKO. 2007. Foraging strategy and breeding constraints of Rhinophylla pumilio (Phyllostomidae) in the Amazon lowlands. J. Mammal. 88: 81–93.
HORSLEY, T. W. B., J. E. BICKNELL, B. K. LIM, AND L. K. AMMERMAN. 2015.
Seed dispersal by frugivorous bats in Central Guyana and a description of previously unknown plant-animal interactions. Acta Chiropt.
17: 331–336.
HOTHORN, T., F. BRETZ, P. WESTFALL, R. M. HEIBERGER, AND A. SCHUETZENMEISTER. 2014. Multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models. R package version: 1.3-2.
ISTVANKO, D. R., T. S. RISCH, AND V. ROLLAND. 2016. Sex-specific foraging
habits and roost characteristics of Nycticeius humeralis in north-central
Arkansas. J. Mammal. 97: 1336–1344.
€
JEPPSSON, T., A. LINDHE, U. GARDENFORS
, AND P. FORSLUND. 2010. The use of
historical collections to estimate population trends: A case study using
Swedish longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Biol. Cons. 143:
1940–1950.
KALKO, E. 1998. Organisation and diversity of tropical bat communities
through space and time. Zoology 101: 281–297.
KLINGBEIL, B. T., AND M. R. WILLIG. 2009. Guild-specific responses of bats to
landscape composition and configuration in fragmented Amazonian
rainforest. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 203–213.
KLINGBEIL, B. T., AND M. R. WILLIG. 2010. Seasonal differences in population, ensemble-and community-level responses of bats to landscape structure in Amazonia. Oikos 119: 1654–1664.
~ , S. G. LAURANCE, S. L. PIMM,
LAURANCE, W. F., J. L. CAMARGO, R. C. LUIZAO
E. M. BRUNA, P. C. STOUFFER, G. WILLIAMSON, J. BENITEZ-MALVIDO,
AND H. L. VASCONCELOS. 2011. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol. Cons. 144: 56–67.
Le GALLIARD, J.-F., P. S. FITZE, R. FERRIE RE, AND J. CLOBERT. 2005. Sex ratio
bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 102: 18231–18236.
LIM, B. K., AND M. D. ENGSTROM. 2001. Species diversity of bats (Mammalia:
Chiroptera) in Iwokrama Forest, Guyana, and the Guianan subregion:
implications for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 10: 613–657.
LINTOTT, P. R., N. BUNNEFELD, E. FUENTES-MONTEMAYOR, J. MINDERMAN, R. J.
MAYHEW, L. OLLEY, AND K. J. PARK. 2014. City life makes females
fussy: sex differences in habitat use of temperate bats in urban areas.
R. Soc. Open Sci. 1: 140200.
€
LUCASS, C., P. KORSTEN, M. EENS, AND W. MULLER
. 2016. Within-family parent–offspring co-adaptation in a wild bird: on static traits, behavioural reaction norms, and sex differences. Funct. Ecol. 30: 274–
282.
MALHI, Y., T. A. GARDNER, G. R. GOLDSMITH, M. R. SILMAN, AND P. ZELAZOWSKI. 2014. Tropical forests in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39: 125–159.
MARCIENTE, R., P. E. D. BOBROWIEC, AND W. E. MAGNUSSON. 2015. Groundvegetation clutter affects phyllostomid bat assemblage structure in lowland Amazonian forest. PLoS ONE 10: e0129560.
MARQUES, J. T., M. J. RAMOS PEREIRA, T. A. MARQUES, C. D. SANTOS, J. SANTANA, P. BEJA, AND J. M. PALMEIRIM. 2013. Optimizing sampling design
to deal with mist-net avoidance in Amazonian birds and bats. PLoS
ONE 8: e74505.
MATA, V. A., F. AMORIM, M. F. V. CORLEY, G. F. MCCRACKEN, H. REBELO, AND
P. BEJA. 2016. Female dietary bias towards large migratory moths in
the European free-tailed bat (Tadarida teniotis). Biol. Lett. 12:
20150988.
10
Rocha et al.
MAZEROLLE, M. J. 2016. AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q) AIC (c). R package version 2.0-4.
MCGARIGAL, K. 2014. FRAGSTATS help. Pieejams: http://www.umass.edu/la
ndeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats. help, 4
MELBOURNE, B. A., AND A. HASTINGS. 2008. Extinction risk depends strongly
on factors contributing to stochasticity. Nature 454: 100–103.
MELLO, M. A. R., G. M. SCHITTINI, P. SELIG, AND H. G. BERGALLO. 2004. A
test of the effects of climate and fruiting of Piper species (Piperaceae)
on reproductive patterns of the bat Carollia perspicillata (Phyllostomidae). Acta Chiropt. 6: 309–318.
MENDENHALL, C. D., D. S. KARP, C. F. MEYER, E. A. HADLY, AND G. C. DAILY.
2014. Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509: 213–217.
MENDES, P., K. A. WITH, L. SIGNORELLI, AND P. DE MARCO Jr. 2016. The relative importance of local versus landscape variables on site occupancy
in bats of the Brazilian Cerrado. Landsc. Ecol. 32: 745. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10980-016-0483-6
MESQUITA, R. D. C. G., P. E. D. S. MASSOCA, C. C. JAKOVAC, T. V. BENTOS,
AND G. B. WILLIAMSON. 2015. Amazon rain forest succession: stochasticity or land-use legacy? Bioscience 65: 849–861.
MEYER, C. F. J., L. M. S. AGUIAR, L. F. AGUIRRE, J. BAUMGARTEN, F. M.
CLARKE, J.-F. COSSON, S. ESTRADA VILLEGAS, J. FAHR, D. FARIA, N.
FUREY, M. HENRY, R. HODGKISON, R. K. B. JENKINS, K. G. JUNG, T.
KINGSTON, T. H. KUNZ, M. C. MACSWINEY GONZALEZ, I. MOYA, B. P.
PATTERSON, J.-M. PONS, P. A. RACEY, K. REX, E. M. SAMPAIO, S.
SOLARI, K. E. STONER, C. C. VOIGT, D. von STADEN, C. D. WEISE, AND
E. K. V. KALKO. 2011. Accounting for detectability improves estimates
of species richness in tropical bat surveys. J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 777–787.
MEYER, C. F. J., AND E. K. V. KALKO. 2008. Assemblage-level responses of
phyllostomid bats to tropical forest fragmentation: land-bridge islands
as a model system. J. Biogeogr. 35: 1711–1726.
MEYER, C. F. J., M. J. STRUEBIG, AND M. R. WILLIG. 2016. Responses of tropical bats to habitat fragmentation, logging, and deforestation. In C. C.
Voigt, and T. Kingston (Eds.). Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of bats in a changing world, pp. 63–103. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
MEYER, C. F. J., M. WEINBEER, AND E. K. V. KALKO. 2005. Home-range size
and spacing patterns of Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae) foraging over water. J. Mammal. 86: 587–598.
NETER, J., M. H. KUTNER, C. J. NACHTSHEIM, AND W. WASSERMAN. 1996.
Applied linear statistical models. Irwin, Chicago.
NEWBOLD, T., L. N. HUDSON, A. P. ARNELL, S. CONTU, A. De PALMA, S. FERRIER, S. L. L. HILL, A. J. HOSKINS, I. LYSENKO, H. R. P. PHILLIPS, V. J.
BURTON, C. W. T. CHNG, S. EMERSON, D. GAO, G. PASK-HALE, J. HUTTON, M. JUNG, K. SANCHEZ-ORTIZ, B. I. SIMMONS, S. WHITMEE, H.
ZHANG, J. P. W. SCHARLEMANN, AND A. PURVIS. 2016. Has land use
pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353: 288–291.
, AND K. A. HAMMOND.
ORR, T. J., J. ORTEGA, R. A. MEDELLIN, C. D. SANCHEZ
2016. Diet choice in frugivorous bats: gourmets or operational pragmatists? J. Mammal. 97: 1578–1588.
PENADO, A., R. ROCHA, M. SAMPAIO, V. GIL, B. M. CARREIRA, AND R. REBELO.
2015. Where to “Rock”? Choice of retreat sites by a gecko in a semiarid habitat. Acta Herpetol. 10: 47–54.
R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna,
Austria.
RAMOS PEREIRA, M. J., J. T. MARQUES, AND J. M. PALMEIRIM. 2010. Ecological
responses of frugivorous bats to seasonal fluctuation in fruit availability in Amazonian forests. Biotropica 42: 680–687.
RINEHART, J. B., AND T. H. KUNZ. 2006. Rhinophylla pumilio. Mamm. Species
791: 1–5.
ROCHA, R., A. LOPEZ
-BAUCELLS, F. Z. FARNEDA, M. GROENENBERG, P. E. D.
BOBROWIEC, M. CABEZA, J. M. PALMEIRIM, AND C. F. J. MEYER. 2017a.
Consequences of a large-scale fragmentation experiment for Neotropical bats: disentangling the relative importance of local and landscapescale effects. Landsc. Ecol. 32: 31–45.
ROCHA, R., D. F. FERREIRA, A. LOPEZ
-BAUCELLS, F. Z. FARNEDA, J. M. B. CARREIRAS, J. M. PALMEIRIM, AND C. F. J. MEYER. 2017b. Data from: Does
sex matter? Gender-specific responses to forest fragmentation in
Neotropical bats. Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/
dryad.fs401
ROCHA, R., T. VIRTANEN, AND M. CABEZA. 2015. Bird assemblages in a Malagasy forest-agricultural frontier: effects of habitat structure and forest
cover. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8: 681–710.
RODRIGUEZ-SAN PEDRO, A., AND J. A. SIMONETTI. 2015. The relative influence
of forest loss and fragmentation on insectivorous bats: does the type
of matrix matter? Landsc. Ecol. 30: 1561–1572.
SENIOR, P., R. K. BUTLIN, AND J. D. ALTRINGHAM. 2005. Sex and segregation in
temperate bats. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 2467–2473.
SMALL, T. W., AND S. J. SCHOECH. 2015. Sex differences in the long-term repeatability of the acute stress response in long-lived, free-living Florida scrubjays (Aphelocoma coerulescens). J. Comp. Physiol. B. 185: 119–133.
SMITH, A., N. KOPER, C. FRANCIS, AND L. FAHRIG. 2009. Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss
and fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 24: 1271–1285.
SPEAKMAN, J. R., AND D. W. THOMAS. 2003. Physiological ecology and
energetics of bats. In T. H. Kunz, and M. B. Fenton (Eds.).
Bat ecology, pp. 430–490. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.
THIES, W., AND E. K. V. KALKO. 2004. Phenology of Neotropical pepper
plants (Piperaceae) and their association with their main dispersers,
two short-tailed fruit bats, Carollia perspicillata and C. castanea (Phyllostomidae). Oikos 104: 362–376.
THIES, W., E. K. V. KALKO, AND H. U. SCHNITZLER. 2006. Influence of environment and resource availability on activity patterns of Carollia castanea (Phyllostomidae) in Panama. J. Mammal. 87: 331–338.
TREVELIN, L. C., M. SILVEIRA, M. PORT-CARVALHO, D. H. HOMEM, AND A. P.
CRUZ-NETO. 2013. Use of space by frugivorous bats (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in a restored Atlantic forest fragment in Brazil. Forest.
Ecol. Manag. 291: 136–143.
VANDERWAL, J., L. FALCONI, S. JANUCHOWSKI, L. SHOO, C. STORLIE, AND M. J.
VANDERWAL. 2011. SDMTools. R package version 1.1-221.
VILLARD, M.-A., AND J. P. METZGER. 2014. Beyond the fragmentation debate: a
conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters.
J. Appl. Ecol. 51: 309–318.
WALSH, C., R. MAC NALLY, AND M. C. WALSH. 2013. Hier.part: variance partition of a multivariate data set. R package version 1.0-4.