Spatial niche variation in two sympatric species of Bokermannohyla (Anura: Hylidae) in southeastern Brazil

References

• Afonso LG, Eterovick PC. 2007a. Microhabitat choice and differential use by anurans in forest streams in southeastern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 41:937–948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afonso LG, Eterovick PC. 2007b. Spatial and temporal distribution of breeding anurans in streams in southeastern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 41:949–963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres M, Ayres-Jr M, Ayres DL, Santos AAS. 2007. BioEstat 5.0–Aplicações estatísticas nas áreas das Ciências Biológicas e Médicas. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá/MCT – CNPq, Manaus, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Bertoluci J, Rodrigues MT. 2002. Seasonal patterns of breeding activity of Atlantic Rainforest anurans at Boracéia, Southeastern Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia. 23:161–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokermann WCA. 1964. Dos nuevas espécies de Hyla de Minas Gerais y notas sobre Hyla alvarengai Bok. (Amphibia, Salientia, Hylidae). Neotropica. 10:67–76.
   Google Scholar
• Bokermann WCA, Sazima I. 1973. Anfíbios da Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil. 1–Espécies novas de Hyla (Anura, Hylidae). Rev Brasil Biol. 33:329–336.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell JP. 1996. The evolution of myrmecophagy and its correlates in poison frogs (Family Dendrobatidae). J Zool. 240:75–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump ML. 1971. Quantitative anlyses of the ecological distribution of a tropical herpetofauna. Univ Kansas Mus Nat Hist Occ Papers. 3:1–62.
   Google Scholar
• Derby OA. 1966. The Serra of Espinhaço, Brazil. The Journal of Geology. 14:374–401.
   Google Scholar
• Duellman WE. 1999. Patterns of distribution of amphibians. A global perspective. Baltimore (MA): Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 1, Global distribution of amphibians: patterns, conservation and future challenges; p. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Eterovick PC, Lazarotti I, Franco BP, Dias CJ. 2010a. Seasonal variation of tadpole spatial niches in permanent streams: The roles of predation risk and microhabitat availability. Austral Ecol. 35:879–887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eterovick PC, Rievers CR, Kopp K, Wachlevski M, Franco BP, Dias CJ, Barata IM, Ferreira ADM, Afonso LG. 2010b. Lack of phylogenetic signal in the variation in anuran microhabitat use in southeastern Brazil. Evol Ecol. 24:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eterovick PC, Sazima I. 2004. Anfíbios da Serra do Cipó – Amphibians from the Serra do Cipó. Belo Horizonte (Brazil): Ed. Puc Minas.
   Google Scholar
• Faivovich J, Haddad CFB, Garcia PCA, Frost DR, Campbell JA, Wheeler WC. 2005. Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist. 294:1–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giulietti AM, Pirani JR. 1988. Proceeding of a workshop on Neotropical distribution patterns. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): Academia Brasileira de Ciências. Chapter, Patterns of geographic distribution of some plant species from the Espinhaço range, Minas Gerais and Bahia; p. 36–96.
   Google Scholar
• Giulietti AM, Pirani JR, Harley RM. 1997. Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for their conservation. Oxford (UK): Information Press. Chapter, Espinhaço range region, eastern Brazil; p. 397–404.
   Google Scholar
• Gorman TA, Haas CA. 2011. Seasonal microhabitat selection and use of syntopic populations of Lithobates okaloosae and Lithobates clamitans clamitans. J Herpetol. 45:313–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. 2001. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence, Inc. and KeseyBear. [cited 2012 Sept 17]. Available from: http://homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS. 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt JJFG, Bonsall MB. 2009. The effects of colonization, extinction and competition on co-existence in metacommunities. J Anim Ecol. 78:866–879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson GE. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quantit Biol. 22:415–427.
   Google Scholar
• Inger RF, Voris HK, Frogner KJ. 1974. Organization of a community of tadpoles in rain forest streams in Borneo. J Trop Ecol. 2:413–417.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ration and Ivlev´s electivity index. Oecologia. 14:413–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopp K, Wachlevski M, Eterovick PC. 2006. Environmental complexity reduces tadpole predation by water bugs. Can J Zool. 84:136–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite FSF, Juncá FA, Eterovick PC. 2008. Status do conhecimento, endemismo e conservação de anfíbios anuros da Cadeia do Espinhaço, Brasil. Megadiversidade. 4:182–200.
   Google Scholar
• Leite FSF, Pezzuti TL, Viana PL. 2006. Amphibia, Bokermannohyla nanuzae, Scinax curicica, Leptodactylus camaquara, Physalaemus evangelistai and Proceratophrys cururu: Distribution extensions. Check List. 2:5.
   Google Scholar
• Levins R. 1968. Evolution in changing environments. Princeton Monogr Popul Biol. 2:1–120.
   Google Scholar
• Lisicic D, Drakulic S, Herrel A, Dikic D, Benkovic V, Tadic Z. 2012. Effect of competition on habitat utilization in two temperate climate gecko species. Ecol Res. 27:551–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 403:853–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakagawa H, Yamane H, Yasugi M, Fujita T, Yokoi K, Ashiwa H, Kitada N, Takano H, Suzuki N, Kishimoto J, et al. 2012. Diel changes in resource use and diet overlap in temperate stream fishes. Ecol Res. 27:417–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napoli MF. 2000. Taxonomia, variação morfológica e distribuição geográfica das espécies do grupo Hyla circumdata (Cope, 1870) (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae) [dissertation]. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): Museu Nacional/UFRJ.
   Google Scholar
• Napoli M, Feio R. 2006. Bokermannohyla feioi. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1; [cited 2011 Oct 25]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira FFR, Eterovick PC. 2010. Patterns of spatial distribution and microhabitat use by syntopic anuran species along permanent lotic ecosystems in the cerrado of southeastern Brazil. Herpetologica. 66:159–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parris KM. 2004. Environmental and spatial variables influence the composition of frog assemblages in sub-tropical eastern Australia. Ecography. 27:292–400.
   Google Scholar
• Pianka ER. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 4:53–74.
   Google Scholar
• Poindexter CJ, Schnella GD, Sánchez-Hernández C, Romero-Almaraz ML, Kennedy ML, Best TL, Wooten MC, Owen RD. 2012. Variation in habitat use of coexisting rodent species in a tropical dry deciduous forest. Mamm Biol. 77:249–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putman RJ. 1994. Community ecology. London (UK): Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Rice WR. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution. 43:223–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice AM, Leichty AR, Pfennig DW. 2009. Parallel evolution and ecological selection: replicated character displacement in spadefoot toads. Proc R Soc B. 276:4189–4196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha CFD, Cogliatti-Carvalho L, Nunes-Freitas AF, Rocha-Pessôa TC, Dias AS, Ariani CV, Morgado LN. 2004. Conservando uma larga porção de diversidade biológica através da conservação de Bromeliacea. Vidalia. 2:52–68.
   Google Scholar
• Schoener TW. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science. 185:27–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva JMC, Bates JM. 2002. Biogeographic patterns and conservation in the South American Cerrado: A tropical savanna hotspot. BioScience. 52:225–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strahler AN. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed morphology. Trans Am Geophys Union. 38:913–920.
   Google Scholar
• Tabarelli M, Pinto LP, Silva JMC, Hirota MM, Bedê LC. 2005. Desafios e oportunidades para a conservação da biodiversidade na Mata Atlântica brasileira. Megadiversidade. 1:132–138.
   Google Scholar
• Viveros RS. 2010. Pteridófitas da Serra do Caraça, Minas Gerais, Brasil [thesis]. Belo Horizonte (Brazil): Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
   Google Scholar
• Wachlevski M, Souza PHC, Kopp K, Eterovick PC. 2008. Microhabitat use and feeding habits of Crossodactylus bokermanni Caramaschi and Sazima, 1985 (Anura, Hylodidae) at a site in south- eastern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 42:1421–1434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warkentin KM. 1992. Microhabitat use and feeding rate variation in Green frog tadpoles (Rana clamitans). Copeia. 3:731–740.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada K, Kumagai NH. 2012. Importance of seagrass vegetation for habitat partitioning between closely related species, mobile macrofauna Neomysis (Misidacea). Hydrobiologia. 680:125–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman BL, Simberloff D. 1996. An historical interpretation of habitat use by frogs in a Central Amazonian Forest. J Biogeogr. 23:27–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar