Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T02:51:54.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Your food, my food: patterns of resource use in two sympatric mouse lemur species

from Part III - Cheirogaleidae: behavior and ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2016

Sandra Thorén
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Germany
Kate F. Carstens
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town, South Africa
Doreen Schwochow
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Ute Radespiel
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Germany
Shawn M. Lehman
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Ute Radespiel
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation
Elke Zimmermann
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Competition over resources, both between individuals of the same species and between different species, plays a crucial role in natural selection (Danchin et al., 2008). Competition is believed to play a major role in regulating the local coexistence of individuals and species (Gause, 1934); therefore, adaptations should have evolved to reduce intra- as well as interspecific resource competition (review in Gause 1934; Brown and Wilson 1956; Hardin 1960; Amarasekare, 2003; Chase and Leibold, 2003). In principle, competition can be avoided through resource partitioning (arthropods: Behmer and Joern, 2008; invertebrates: Pianka, 1973; birds: Garcia and Arroyo, 2005; mammals: Azevedo et al., 2006; Sushma and Singh, 2006). Partitioning of food resources (of focus in this chapter) can be expressed in different ways. First, a food resource might be used by several individuals and/or species in different proportions. For instance, even though three sympatric primate species in Bolivia (Callimico goeldii, Saguinus labiatus and S. fuscicollis) show dietary overlaps, the relative proportion of shared food resources in their total diet differ between species (Porter, 2001). Second, food resources might be temporally partitioned: shared resources may be used at different times of the day and/or during different seasons. This is illustrated by the diurnal versus the nocturnal feeding patterns of different lemur species in Madagascar (Petter, 1962), as well as the varying levels of nocturnal activity between two sympatric species of foxes in Brazil (Vieira and Port, 2007). Third, food resources might be spatially partitioned. The same resources can then be used by competitors who occupy different areas or microhabitats. Spatial separation of resources can occur on a local scale as well as on a larger geographic scale. One example is given by two mouse lemur species, Microcebus murinus and M. berthae, in western Madagascar. These solitary foragers show a high degree of dietary overlap, but their coexistence appears to be facilitated by spatial separation on a local scale (Dammhahn and Kappeler, 2008a, 2008b). On an intraspecific level, spatial separation is most prominent in territorial species where individuals exclude each other from access to the resources within their territories, and reduce direct competitive interactions by marking them with olfactory cues (Paquet, 1991; Fawcett et al., 2012), acoustic signals (Chivers and MacKinnon, 1977; Robinson, 1981) or visual displays (Peek, 1972).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Dwarf and Mouse Lemurs of Madagascar
Biology, Behavior and Conservation Biogeography of the Cheirogaleidae
, pp. 305 - 316
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amarasekare, P. 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters 6:1109–1122.Google Scholar
Azevedo, FCC, Lester, V, Gorsuch, W, et al. 2006. Dietary breadth and overlap among five sympatric prairie carnivores. Journal of Zoology 269:127–135.Google Scholar
Barrows, EM. 2011. Animal Behavior Desk Reference: A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Bearder, SK. 1987. Lorises, bushbabies and tarsiers: diverse societies in solitary foragers. In Cheney, D, Seyfarth, R, Smuts, B, Struhsaker, T, Wrangham, R (eds.), Primate Societies (pp. 11–24). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Behmer, ST, Joern, A. 2008. Coexisting generalist herbivores occupy unique nutritional feeding niches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:1977–1982.Google Scholar
Brown, WL, Wilson, EO. 1956. Character displacement. Systematic Zoology49–64.Google Scholar
Chase, JM, Leibold, MA. 2003. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Chivers, DJ, MacKinnon, J. 1977. On the behaviour of siamang after playback of their calls. Primates 18:943–948.Google Scholar
Dammhahn, M, Kappeler, PM. 2008a. Small-scale coexistence of two mouse lemur species (Microcebus berthae and M. murinus) within a homogeneous competitive environment. Oecologia 157:473–483.Google Scholar
Dammhahn, M, Kappeler, PM. 2008b. Comparative feeding ecology of sympatric Microcebus berthae and M. murinus. International Journal of Primatology 29:1567–1589.Google Scholar
Danchin, E, Giraldeau, L, Cezilly, F. 2008. Behavioural Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York.
Eberle, M, Kappeler, PM. 2003. Cooperative breeding in grey mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus). Folia Primatologica 74:367.Google Scholar
Eberle, M, Kappeler, PM. 2006. Family insurance: kin selection and cooperative breeding in a solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60:582–588.Google Scholar
Ehresmann, P. 2000. Ökologische Differenzierung von zwei sympatrischen Mausmaki-Arten (Microcebus murinus und M. ravelobensis) im Trockenwald Nordwest-Madagaskars. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hannover.
Fawcett, JK, Fawcett, JM, Soulsbury, CD. 2012. Seasonal and sex differences in urine marking rates of wild red foxes Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Ethology 31:41–47.Google Scholar
Garcia, JT, Arroyo, BE. 2005. Food-niche differentiation in sympatric Hen Circus cyaneus and Montagu's Harriers Circus pygargus. Ibis 147:144–154.Google Scholar
Gause, GF. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
Hafen, T, Neveu, H, Rumpler, Y, Wilden, I, Zimmermann, E. 1998. Acoustically dimorphic advertisement calls separate morphologically and genetically homogenous populations of the grey mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Folia Primatologica 69:342–356.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:1292–1297.Google Scholar
Joly, M, Zimmermann, E. 2007. First evidence for relocation of stationary food resources during foraging in a strepsirrhine primate (Microcebus murinus). American Journal of Primatology 69:1045–1052.Google Scholar
Lutermann, H, Schmelting, B, Radespiel, U, Ehresmann, P, Zimmermann, E. 2006. The role of survival for the evolution of female philopatry in a solitary forager, the grey mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:2527–2533.Google Scholar
Olivieri, G, Zimmermann, E, Randrianambinina, B, et al. 2007. The ever-increasing diversity in mouse lemurs: three new species in north and northwestern Madagascar. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43:309–327.Google Scholar
Paquet, PC. 1991. Scent-marking behavior of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) in Riding Mountain National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:1721–1727.Google Scholar
Peek, FW. 1972. An experimental study of the territorial function of vocal and visual display in the male red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Animal Behaviour 20:112–118.Google Scholar
Petter, JJ. 1962. Ecological and behavioural studies of Madagascar lemurs in the field. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 102:267–281.Google Scholar
Pianka, ER. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 4:53–74.Google Scholar
Porter, LM. 2001. Dietary differences among sympatric Callitrichinae in northern Bolivia: Callimico goeldii, Saguinus fuscicollis and S. labiatus. International Journal of Primatology 22:961–992.Google Scholar
Radespiel, U. 2000. Sociality in the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus) in northwestern Madagascar. American Journal of Primatology 51: 21–40.Google Scholar
Radespiel, U, Ehresmann, P, Zimmermann, E. 2003. Species-specific usage of sleeping sites in two sympatric mouse lemur species (Microcebus murinus and M. ravelobensis) in northwestern Madagascar. American Journal of Primatology 59:139–151.Google Scholar
Rakotondranary, SJ, Hapke, A, Ganzhorm, JU. 2011. Distribution and morphological variation of Microcebus spp. along an environmental gradient in southeastern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology 32:1037–1057.Google Scholar
Rakotondravony, R, Radespiel, U. 2009. Varying patterns of coexistence of two mouse lemur species (Microcebus ravelobensis and M. murinus) in a heterogeneous landscape. American Journal of Primatology 71:928–938.Google Scholar
Reimann, WE. 2002. Koexistenz und Nahrungsökologie von Weibchen des grauen und goldbraunen Mausmakis (Microcebus murinus und M. ravelobensis) in Nordwest-Madagaskar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover.
Rendigs, A, Radespiel, U, Wrogemann, D, Zimmermann, E. 2003. Relationship between microhabitat structure and distribution of mouse lemurs (Microcebus spp.) in Northwestern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology 24:47–64.Google Scholar
Robinson, JG. 1981. Vocal regulation of inter- and intragroup spacing during boundary encounters in the titi monkey, Callicebus moloch. Primates 22:161–172.Google Scholar
Schmelting, B, Ehresmann, P, Lutermann, H, Randrianambinina, B, Zimmermann, E. 2000. Reproduction of two sympatric mouse lemur species (Microcebus murinus and M. ravelobensis) in north-west Madagascar: first results of a long term study. In Lourenço, WR, Goodman, SM (eds.), Diversity and Endemism in Madagascar (pp. 165–175). Société de Biogéographie, Paris.
Sushma, HS, Singh, M. 2006. Resource partitioning and interspecific interactions among sympatric rain forest arboreal mammals of the Western Ghats, India. Behavioral Ecology 17:479.Google Scholar
Thorén, S, Quietzsch, F, Radespiel, U. 2009. Leaf nest use and construction in the golden-brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis) in the Ankarafantsika National Park. American Journal of Primatology 71:1–8.Google Scholar
Thorén, S, Quietzsch, F, Schwochow, D, et al. 2011. Seasonal changes in feeding ecology and activity patterns of two sympatric mouse lemur species, the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus) and the golden-brown mouse lemur (M. ravelobensis), in northwestern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology 32:566–586.Google Scholar
Vieira, EM, Port, D. 2007. Niche overlap and resource partitioning between two sympatric fox species in southern Brazil. Journal of Zoology 272:57–63.Google Scholar
Weidt, A. 2001. Ökologie und Sozialbiologie von Weibchen des goldbraunen Mausmakis (Microcebus ravelobensis) während der Trockenzeit in Nordwest Madagaskar. Diploma thesis, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany.
Weidt, A, Hagenah, N, Randrianambinina, B, Radespiel, U, Zimmermann, E. 2004. Social organization of the golden brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123:40–51.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, E, Cepok, S, Rakotoarison, N, Zietemann, V, Radespiel, U. 1998. Sympatric mouse lemurs in north-west Madagascar: a new rufous mouse lemur species (Microcebus ravelobensis). Folia Primatologica 69:106–114.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×