Advertisement

Acta Theriologica

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 175–188 | Cite as

Overlap of temporal niches among four sympatric species of shrews

  • Leszek Rychlik
Article

Abstract

Hypotheses about the dependence of circadian activity from metabolic rate and the segregation of temporal niches among competing species were verified by the study of activity patterns in a shrew community of two semiaquatic species,Neomys anomalus Cabrera, 1907 andN. fodiens (Pennant, 1771), and two terrestrial species,Sorex araneus Linnaeus, 1758 andS. minutus Linnaeus, 1766, co-existing in wet habitats of Białowieża Forest (E Poland). In ten trapping sessions, performed in early summer between 1991 and 2000, traps were open 24 hours continuously and patrolled at 1:00, 5:00, 10:00, 15:00, and 20:00. All the shrew species were most active between 20:00 and 1:00, and least active around mid-day (10:00–15:00). However, activity of the twoSorex species was lower than that of the twoNeomys species in the period 20:00–1:00, but higher in the period 15:00–20:00. BothNeomys species displayed clearly nocturnal, unimodal patterns of activity. In contrast, activity of bothSorex species was relatively evenly distributed over 24 hours and they increased their activity earlier (ie after 15:00) than bothNeomys species (after 20:00). These results confirm the idea that small shrew species with higher metabolic rate have more frequent and more equally distributed activity bouts than large species. Overlap of temporal niches was the highest within genera (99.29% between bothNeomys species and 98.36% between bothSorex species), the lowest betweenN. fodiens andS. araneus (88.26%) andS. minutus (89.34%), and intermediate betweenN. anomalus and bothSorex species (91.78 and 93.34%, respectively). Such high interspecific overlaps in activity suggest a joint-action of other mechanisms that separate ecological niches of these species also in other dimensions (eg food, microhabitat).

Key words

Neomys Sorex circadian activity niche separation interspecific competition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnard C. J., Brown C. A. J. and Gray-Wallis J. 1983. Time and energy budgets and competition in the common shrew (Sorex araneus L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäumler W. 1975. Activity of some small mammals in the field. Acta Theriologica 20: 365–377.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter R. M., Goulden E. A. and Meester J. 1979. The activity patterns of some Southern AfricanCrocidura in captivity. Acta Theriologica 24: 61–68.Google Scholar
  4. Buchalczyk A. 1972. Seasonal variations in activity of shrews. Acta Theriologica 17: 221–243.Google Scholar
  5. Buchalczyk T. 1964. Daily activity rhythm in rodents under natural conditions. Acta Theriologica 9: 357–362.Google Scholar
  6. Buckner C. H. 1964. Metabolism, food capacity and feeding behaviour in four species of shrews. Canadian Journal of Zoology 42: 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron G. N., Kincaid W. B. and Carnes B. A. 1979. Experimental species removal: temporal activity patterns ofSigmodon hispidus andReithrodontomys fulvescens. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castién E. and Gosálbez J. 1999. Habitat and food preferences in a guild of insectivorous mammals in the Western Pyrenees. Acta Theriologica 44: 1–13. Cawthorn J. M. 1994. Live trapping study of two syntopic species ofSorex, S. cinereus andS. fumeus, in southwestern Pennsylvania. [In: Advances in the biology of shrews. J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland Jr and R. K. Rose, eds]. Special Publication of Carnegie Museum of Natural History No. 18, Pittsburgh: 39-43.Google Scholar
  9. Churchfield S. 1982. The influence of temperature on the activity and food consumption of the common shrew. Acta Theriologica 27: 295–304.Google Scholar
  10. Churchfield S. 1984. Dietary separation in three species of shrew inhabiting water-cress beds. Journal of Zoology, London 204: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchfield S. 1990. The natural history of shrews. Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd., Bromley: 1–178.Google Scholar
  12. DeCoursey P. J. 1989. Photoentrainment of circadian rhythms: an ecologist's viewpoint. [In: Circadian clocks and ecology. T. Hiroshige and K. Honma, eds]. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo: 187–206.Google Scholar
  13. DeCoursey P. J. 1990. Circadian photoentrainment in nocturnal mammals — ecological overtones. Biology of Behaviour 15: 213–238.Google Scholar
  14. Ellenbroek F. J. M. and Hamburger J. 1991. Interspecific interactions between the shrewsSorex araneus L. andS. minutus L. (Soricidae, Insectivora) and the use of habitat — a laboratory study. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 41: 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faliñski J. B. (ed) 1986. Vegetation dynamics in temperate lowland primeval forests. Ecological studies in Białowieża forest. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht: 1–537.Google Scholar
  16. Goulden E. A. and Meester J. 1978. Notes on the behaviour ofCrocidura andMyosorex (Mammalia: Soricidae) in captivity. Mammalia 42: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GraphPAD InStat 1990. GraphPAD InStat version 1.13 software. W. Lampert, Max-Planck-Institut, 911271S.Google Scholar
  18. Halle S. 2000a. Ecological relevance of daily activity patterns. [In: Activity patterns in small mammals. Ecological Studies, vol. 141. S. Halle and N. C. Stenseth, eds]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: 67–90.Google Scholar
  19. Halle S. 2000b. Voles — small graminivores with polyphasic patterns. [In: Activity patterns in small mammals. Ecological Studies, vol. 141. S. Halle and N. C. Stenseth, eds]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: 191–215.Google Scholar
  20. Halle S. and Stenseth N. C. (eds) 2000. Activity patterns in small mammals. Ecological Studies, vol. 141. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: 1–320.Google Scholar
  21. Hanski I. 1984. Food consumption, assimilation and metabolic rate in six species of shrew (Sorex andNeomys). Annales Zoologici Fennici 21: 157–165.Google Scholar
  22. Hanski I. 1985. What does a shrew do in an energy crisis? [In: Behavioural ecology. Ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. The 25th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, Reading 1984. R. M. Sibly and R. H. Smith, eds]. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 247–252.Google Scholar
  23. Hanski I. 1994. Population biological consequences of body size inSorex. [In: Advances in the biology of shrews. J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland Jr and R. K. Rose, eds]. Special Publication of Carnegie Museum of Natural History No. 18, Pittsburgh: 15-26.Google Scholar
  24. Ivanter E. V. and Makarov A. M. 2002. [Circadian activity and movements of the common shrew (Sorex araneus L.). Ekologiya 4: 298–303. [In Russian]Google Scholar
  25. Jánský L. and Hanák V. 1960. Aktivität der Spitzmäuse unter natürlichen Bedingungen. Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 8: 55–63.Google Scholar
  26. Karulin B. E., Khylap L. A., Nikitina N. A., Kovalevsky Yu. V., Teslenko K. B. and Albov S. A. 1974. Activity and use of refuges in the common shrew (from observations on animals labelled with radioactive cobalt). Byulleten' Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, Otdel biologicheskii 79: 65–72. [In Russian with English summary]Google Scholar
  27. Kenagy G. J. 1973. Daily and seasonal patterns of activity and energetics in a heteromyid rodent community. Ecology 54: 1201–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kotler B. P., Brown J. S. and Subach A. 1993. Mechanisms of species coexitence of optimal foragers — temporal partitioning by two species of sand dune gerbils. Oikos 67: 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kronfeld-Schor N. and Dayan T. 1999. The dietary basis for temporal partitioning: food habits of coexistingAcomys species. Oecologia 121: 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krushinska N. L. and Pucek Z. 1989. Ethological study of sympatric species of European water shrews. Acta Theriologica 34: 269–285.Google Scholar
  31. Krushinska N. L. and Rychlik L. 1993. Intra- and interspecific antagonistic behaviour in two sympatric species of water shrews:Neomys fodiens andN. anomalus. Journal of Ethology 11: 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lardet J. P. 1988. Spatial behaviour and activity patterns of the water shrew,Neomys fodiens in the field. Acta Theriologica 33: 293–303.Google Scholar
  33. Malmquist M. G. 1985. Character displacement and biogeography of the pygmy shrew in northern Europe. Ecology 66: 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malmquist M. 1986. Density compensation in allopatric populations of the pygmy shrewSorex minutus on Gotland and the outer Hebrides — evidence for the effect of interspecific competition. Oecologia 68: 344–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merritt J. F. and Vessey S. H. 2000. Shrews — small insectivores with polyphasic patterns. [In: Activity patterns in small mammals. Ecological Studies, vol. 141. S. Halle and N. C. Stenseth, eds]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: 235–251.Google Scholar
  36. O'Farrell M. J. 1974. Seasonal activity patterns of rodents in a segebrush community. Journal of Mammalogy 55: 809–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ohdachi S. 1994. Total activity rhythms of three soricine species in Hokkaido. Journal of Mammalogical Society of Japan 19: 89–99.Google Scholar
  38. Ohdachi S. 1997. Laboratory experiments on spatial use and aggression in three sympatric species of shrews in Hokkaido, Japan. Mammal Study 22: 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pernetta J. C. 1977. Population ecology of British shrews in grassland. Acta Theriologica 22: 279–296.Google Scholar
  40. Pianka E. R. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Priotto J. and Polop J. 1997. Space and time use in syntopic populations ofAkodon azarae andCalomys venustus (Rodentia, Muridae). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 62: 30–36.Google Scholar
  42. Rácz G. and Demeter A. 1998. Character displacement in mandible shape and size in two species of water shrews (Neomys, Mammalia: Insectivora). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44: 165–175.Google Scholar
  43. Rychlik L. 1997. Differences in foraging behaviour between water shrews:Neomys anomalus andNeomys fodiens. Acta Theriologica 42: 351–386.Google Scholar
  44. Rychlik L. 2000. Habitat preferences of four sympatric species of shrews. Acta Theriologica 45, Suppl. 1: 173–190.Google Scholar
  45. Rychlik L. 2001. Habitat preferences of water shrews and root vole coexisting along a stream in Białowieża Forest. Säugetierkundliche Informationen, Jena 5: 99–112.Google Scholar
  46. Rychlik L. and Jancewicz E. 2002. Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes. Behavioral Ecology 13: 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rychlik L. and Ramalhinho M. G. 2005. Habitat preferences of the Mediterranean water shrewNeomys anomalus in Portugal. [In: Advances in the biology of the Soricidae II. J. F. Merritt, S. Churchfield, R. Hutterer and B. I. Sheftel, eds]. Special Publication of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, No. 22 Pittsburgh. (in press)Google Scholar
  48. Rychlik L., Ruczyñski I., Borowski Z. and Friedrich T. 2004. Space use and competitive interactions in shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae) revealed by radio-telemetry. [In: Contributions to the 5th International Symposium on Physiology, Behaviour and Conservation of Wildlife, Berlin, Germany, 26–29 September 2004. C. Voigt and H. Hofer, eds]. Advances in Ethology 38, Suppl. to Ethology: 172.Google Scholar
  49. Schoener T. W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Shillito J. F. 1963. Field observations on the growth, reproduction and activity of a woodland population of the common shrew,Sorex araneus L. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 140: 99–114.Google Scholar
  51. SYSTAT 1992. Systat for Windows, version 5.01 software. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor J. R. E. 1998. Evolution of energetic strategies in shrews. [In: Evolution of shrews. J. M. Wójcik and M. Wolsan, eds]. Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża: 309–346.Google Scholar
  53. Tupikova N. V. 1949. [The diet and nature of circadian activity of shrews from central region of USSR]. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 28: 561–572. [In Russian]Google Scholar
  54. Voesenek L. A. C. J. and van Bemmel A. C. 1984. Intra and interspecific competition in the water shrew in the Netherlands. Acta Theriologica 29: 297–301.Google Scholar
  55. Vogel P. 1976. Energy consumption of European and African shrews. Acta Theriologica 21: 195–206.Google Scholar
  56. Vogel P. 1980. Metabolic levels and biological strategies in shrews. [In: Comparative physiology: primitive mammals. K. Schmidt-Nielsen, L. Bolis and C. R. Taylor, eds]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 170–180.Google Scholar
  57. Yalden D. W., Morris P. A. and Harper J. 1973. Studies on the comparative ecology of some French small mammals. Mammalia 37: 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoshino H. and Abe H. 1984. Comparative study on the foraging habits of two species of soricine shrews. Acta Theriologica 29: 35–43.Google Scholar
  59. Ziv Y. and Smallwood J. A. 2000. Gerbils and heteromyids — interspecific competition and the spatio-temporal niche. [In: Activity patterns in small mammals. Ecological Studies, vol. 141. S. Halle and N. C. Stenseth, eds]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: 159–176.Google Scholar
  60. Zwolak R. and Rychlik L. 2004. Does the reduction of locomotor activity serve as an aggression avoidance mechanism in shrews (Soricidae)? Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Biology 7(2) http://www.ejpau.media.pl/series/volume7/issue2/biology/art-06.html.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leszek Rychlik
    • 1
  1. 1.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBiałowieżaPoland

Personalised recommendations