Search

Bats are well known for species richness and ecological diversity, and thus, they provide a good opportunity to study relationships and interaction between species. To assess interactions, we consider distinct traits that are probably to be triggered by niche shape and evolutionary processes. We present data on the trophic niche differentiation between two sympatric European trawling bat species, Myotis dasycneme and Myotis daubentonii, incorporating a wide spectrum of methodological approaches. We measure morphological traits involved in foraging and prey handling performance including bite force, weightlifting capacity and wing morphology. We then measure resulting prey consumption using both morphological and molecular diet analyses. These species closely resemble each other in morphological traits, however, subtle but significant differences were apparent in bite force and lift capacity, which are related to differences in basic body and head size. Both morphological and molecular diet analyses show strong niche overlap. We detected subtle differences in less frequent prey items, as well as differences in the exploitation of terrestrial and aquatic-based prey groups. Myotis dasycneme feeds more on aquatic prey, like Chironomidae and their pupal stages, or on the aquatic moth Acentria ephemerella. Myotis daubentonii feeds more on terrestrial prey, like Brachycera, or Coleoptera. This suggests that these bats use different microhabitats within the habitat where they co-occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present study, we use mtDNA sequence data (cyt b gene) in combination with nuclear DNA sequences (C-mos, Rag2 genes, R35 intron), nuclear genomic fingerprints (ISSR) and morphological data to reveal species diversity within the Southeast Asian leaf turtle genus Cyclemys, a morphologically difficult group comprising cryptic species. Two morphologically distinct major groupings exist, a yellow-bellied species group with three taxa ( Cyclemys atripons, C. dentata, C. pulchristriata) and a dark-bellied species group. The latter contains besides the morphologically variable C. oldhamii three additional new species ( C. enigmatica n. sp., C. fusca n. sp., C. gemeli n. sp.). According to mtDNA data, C. fusca and C. gemeli constitute with high support the sister group of a clade comprising all other species, indicating that the dark-bellied species are not monophyletic, despite morphological similarity. mtDNA sequences of C. enigmatica, being highly distinct in nuclear genomic markers, do not differ from the sympatric C. dentata, suggesting that the original mitochondrial genome of C. enigmatica was lost due to introgressive hybridization. Morphological discrimination of Cyclemys species is possible using multivariate methods. However, gross morphology of most dark-bellied species on the one hand and of C. atripons and C. pulchristriata on the other is so similar that reliable species determination is only possible when genetic markers are used. The high diversity within Cyclemys requires revision of the IUCN Red List Categories for leaf turtles because the former assessment was based on the wrong assumption that in the entire range of the genus occurs only a single species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum brown bearsUrsus arctosrecolonized the glacial landscape of Central and Northern Europe faster than all other carnivorous mammal species of the Holocene fauna.Ursus arctoswas recorded in Northern Europe from the beginning of the Late-Glacial. The recolonization of northern Central Europe may have taken place directly after the maximum glaciation. The distribution of the brown bear was restricted to glacial refugia only during the Last Glacial Maximum, for probably no more than 10 000 years.2. Genetic analyses have suggested three glacial refugia for the brown bear: the Iberian Peninsula, the Italian Peninsula and the Balkans. Subfossil records ofUrsus arctosfrom north-western Moldova as well as reconstructed environmental conditions during the Last Glacial Maximum in this area suggest to us a fourth glacial refuge for the brown bear. Because of its connection to the Carpathians, we designate this as the‘Carpathian refuge’.3. Due to the low genetic distance between brown bears of northern Norway, Finland, Estonia, north-eastern Russia and the northern Carpathians (the so-called eastern lineage), the Carpathians were considered the geographical origin of the recolonization of these regions. During the recolonization of northern Europe the brown bear probably reached these areas rapidly from the putative Carpathian refuge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]