* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download How phylogenetic constraints and environmental pressures on their
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
How phylogenetic constraints and environmental pressures on their acoustic communication influence conservation prospects of the Malagasy mouse lemurs Supervisors Main supervisor: Doctor Marc Holderied (University of Bristol) Co-supervisor: Doctor Grainne McCabe ( Bristol Zoological Society, affiliated with the University of Bristol ) Co-supervisor: Dr Christoph Schwitzer ( Bristol Zoological Society (Director of Conservation) & European Association for the Study and Conservation of Lemurs (AEECL; Secretary) ) Project enquiries - Email: [email protected] Contact number: +44 (0) 0117 39 41190 Host Institution: University of Bristol Project description There is an ongoing debate about the role of phylogeny versus the influence of the local environment in shaping animal behaviour, because both factors can profoundly impact a species’ behavioural phenotype. It is imperative to understand the environmental pressures vs phylogenetic constraints argument because both factors play a major role in governing the distribution of animal populations in forest habitats, which is crucial for predicting the population dynamics of threatened species. To tease apart the role of phylogeny and environment on vocalizations, this project examines the vocal repertoire of 12 recently diverged mouse lemur species from the genus Microcebus, in a variety of habitats over a limited geographic location, Madagascar. Environmental pressures play an important role in the evolution of species-specific traits, with behaviours that are required to increase the animal’s survival chance most likely to be more flexible to adaptation. Vocal communication is vital to carry a variety of information to other members of the population regarding predators, mating opportunities and food presence; therefore it should be highly flexible to environmental and social pressures (Obrist, 1995). Understanding vocal repertoire flexibility level is important because it enables us to determine how species will adapt their methods of vocal communication to rapidly changing environmental conditions. While flexibility of some aspects of behaviour have been studied extensively; e.g., dietary, ranging, dispersal, the flexibility of vocalization behaviour in relation to ecological variation and/or proximity of closely related species has not been fully examined. Mouse lemurs are a model clade for this study as the number of species in the Microcebus genus is large; i.e. 21 species (Mittermeier et al. 2010). This study will include species from three different habitats in order to examine the ecological variation impact on vocalizations: the Western dry forests, Eastern rainforests and transitional North-West Sambirano forests. The most common vocalisation types of 12 Microcebus species, four from each habitat, will be collected using acoustic recording equipment and will be used to compile species-specific vocal repertoires. Each species’ vocal repertoire will be analysed to investigate: • Environmental pressure: Do species living within the same habitat have a more similar vocal repertoire compared to those from other habitats? Do the acoustic transmission properties of a habitat have an influence on adaptation of the vocal repertoire? • Phylogenetic influences: Do species that are more recently diverged from each other, and thus more closely related, have a more similar vocal repertoire, independent of environmental influence? References • Mittermeier, RA., Louis JR, EE., Richardson, M., Schwitzer, C., Lingrand, O., Rylands, AB., Hawkins, F., Rajaobelina, S., Ratsimbazafy, J., Rasoloarison, R., Roos, C., Kappeler, PM. and Mackinnon, J. (2000) Lemurs of Madagascar. Third Edition. Conservation Internation, US. • Obrist, MK. (1995) Flexible bat echolocation: The influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. 36, pp. 207-219. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)