Biodiversity Data Journal :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: Ricardo Moratelli (ricardo.moratelli@fiocruz.br)
Academic editor: Miguel Camacho Sanchez
Received: 31 Oct 2021 | Accepted: 21 Dec 2021 | Published: 29 Dec 2021
© 2021 Jonatas Tavares, Roberto Novaes, Iuri Veríssimo, Maria Alice Kuzel, Sócrates da Costa-Neto, Caroline Rangel, Mylena Borges, Helena Medrado, Bruno Alves, Renan Souza, Ana Carolina Pinto Menezes, Luis Fernando Menezes-Júnior, Daniela Dias, Cecilia de Andreazzi, Rosana Gentile, Ricardo Moratelli
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Tavares JA, Novaes RLM, Veríssimo I, Kuzel MAA, da Costa-Neto SF, Rangel CL, Borges M, Medrado H, Alves B, Souza RF, Pinto Menezes ACD, Menezes-Júnior LF, Dias D, de Andreazzi CS, Gentile R, Moratelli R (2021) Bats from the Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e77400. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e77400
|
|
The Pedra Branca Forest is located in a highly-urbanised region of the central portion of Rio de Janeiro City, comprises the largest urban forest on the continent and is isolated from other Atlantic Forest remnants. The local flora and fauna are protected by three conservation units (Pedra Branca State Park, Prainha Municipal Natural Park and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve) and one biological station (Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station—EFMA). Here, we provide an updated list of the bat fauna for the remnant. The results are based on samplings at EFMA and literature data from Pedra Branca State Park and Prainha Natural Park. The three sampling sites combined resulted in 31 species, 23 genera and four families. Phyllostomidae was the richest family with 24 species, followed by Vespertilionidae with five species (3%) and Molossidae and Noctilionidae with one species. The local bat fauna was predominantly composed of species with a broad geographic distribution.
bat survey, Chiroptera, urban forest, urban wildlife
Bats provide important ecosystem services as pollinators, seed dispersers and controllers of insect populations (
The Brazilian Atlantic Forest is severely fragmented, particularly in large cities, such as Rio de Janeiro—the second largest City in Brazil, with more than 6.7 million people (
Here, we report the results of an extensive bat survey carried out at the Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station. As two other surveys have been conducted for bats in different regions of the remnant, we also provide an updated list of bats from the Pedra Branca Forest.
The Pedra Branca Forest (Fig.
Pedra Branca is predominantly classified as an ombrophilous dense forest (
At EFMA, bat sampling was carried out for 55 nights using 10 mist-nets (polyester, 9 × 3 m, 20 mm mesh) that were placed in clearings in the vegetation, along trails, over water bodies and near flowering or fruiting plants (
This extensive list of bats from the Pedra Branca Forest was compiled, based on sampling efforts carried out by the Fiocruz Research Group from Oct 2013 to Dec 2017 in the EFMA and literature data from two other surveys carried out at the PEPB (
Bats were classified into trophic guilds following
Voucher specimens (Suppl. material
A total of 558 individuals were captured at EFMA (success of 0.009 captures/m².h), representing 25 species from three families (Table
Checklist of bat species from the Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, including information on number of captures by locality and diet. Localities include Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (EFMA; present study), Pedra Branca State Park (PEPB; Dias et al. 2002) and Prainha Municipal Natural Park (PNMP; Pinto 2008). Species, whose presence in the locality is marked with an “X”, were obtained from
Taxon |
Diet |
Individuals per locality |
Total |
||
EFMA |
PEPB |
PNMP |
|||
Phyllostomidae, Micronycterinae |
|||||
Micronycteris microtis |
Gleaning insectivore |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
Micronycetris minuta |
Gleaning insectivore |
7 |
1 |
3 |
12 |
Phyllostomidae, Desmodontinae |
|||||
Desmodus rotundus |
Sanguivore |
42 |
41 |
2 |
85 |
Diphylla ecaudata |
Sanguivore |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
Phyllostomidae, Phyllostominae |
|||||
Chrotopterus auritus |
Carnivore |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
Mimon bennettii |
Gleaning insectivore |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
Phyllostomus hastatus |
Omnivore |
10 |
6 |
0 |
16 |
Tonatia bidens |
Omnivore |
8 |
2 |
3 |
13 |
Trachops cirrhosus |
Carnivore |
1 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
Phyllostomidae, Glossophaginae |
|||||
Anoura caudifer |
Nectarivore |
4 |
11 |
9 |
24 |
Anoura geoffroyi |
Nectarivore |
- |
X |
- |
X |
Glossophaga soricina |
Omnivore |
9 |
17 |
18 |
44 |
Phyllostomidae, Lonchophyllinae |
|||||
Lonchophylla peracchii |
Nectarivore |
3 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
Phyllostomidae, Carolliinae |
|||||
Carollia perspicillata |
Frugivore |
153 |
100 |
96 |
350 |
Phyllostomidae, Glyphonycterinae |
|||||
Glyphonycterys sylvestris |
Gleaning insectivore |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Phyllostomidae, Stenodermatinae |
|||||
Artibeus fimbriatus |
Frugivore |
25 |
139 |
75 |
239 |
Artibeus lituratus |
Frugivore |
217 |
265 |
114 |
596 |
Artibeus obscurus |
Frugivore |
10 |
20 |
23 |
53 |
Chiroderma doriae |
Frugivore |
0 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
Platyrrhinus lineatus |
Frugivore |
1 |
5 |
23 |
29 |
Platyrrhinus recifinus |
Frugivore |
2 |
2 |
6 |
10 |
Sturnira lilium |
Frugivore |
20 |
27 |
3 |
50 |
Sturnira tildae |
Frugivore |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
Vampyressa pusilla |
Frugivore |
9 |
7 |
6 |
22 |
Noctilionidae |
|||||
Noctilio leporinus |
Piscivore |
- |
X |
- |
X |
Molossidae |
|||||
Molossus molossus |
Aerial insectivore |
2 |
8 |
5 |
15 |
Vespertilionidae |
|||||
Vespertilioninae |
|||||
Eptesicus brasiliensis |
Aerial insectivore |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Histiotus velatus |
Aerial insectivore |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Myotinae |
|||||
Myotis izecksohni |
Aerial insectivore |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Myotis nigricans |
Aerial insectivore |
13 |
11 |
6 |
32 |
Myotis riparius |
Aerial insectivore |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
Total of captures |
558 |
681 |
402 |
1,644 |
Our sampling site, combined with the two extra localities, resulted in an effort of 123 sampling nights and 114,180 m².h, with 1,644 individuals captured (Table
Species richness, capture effort and capture success of bats in three surveys in Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Localities: EFMA = Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (present study); PEPB = Pedra Branca State Park (
Localities |
Sampling nights |
Captures (N) |
Species richness |
Sampling Effort (m².h) |
Capture success |
|
EFMA |
55 |
558 |
25 |
59,400 |
0.009 |
|
PEPB |
45 |
681 |
24 |
38,880 |
0.017 |
|
PNMP |
23 |
402 |
19 |
15,900 |
0.025 |
|
Total |
123 |
1,639 |
31 |
114,180 |
0.014 |
Species accumulation curves did not show stabilisation, neither for each locality (Fig.
Estimated species richness of bats using Jackknife1 and Chao1 indices for each sampled area and for the three studies gathered in Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Localities |
N Species |
Jackknife-1 |
Chao-1 |
EFMA |
25 |
28 |
26 |
PEPB |
24 |
26 |
27 |
PNMP |
19 |
22 |
20 |
Total |
31 |
33 |
30 |
The three localities in the Pedra Branca remnant altogether revealed 31 species of bats, which represents 40% of the 80 species reported for the State of Rio de Janeiro (
The record of Micronycteris megalotis for the Pedra Branca Forest by
In general, bat surveys in the Atlantic Forest are based on ground-level mist-nets only. Although this method is widely used throughout the Neotropical Region (
We expect an increase in the species list for the Pedra Branca Forest by sampling in localities not previously surveyed and using different and complementary methods. Considering that the study area is under high anthropogenic pressure, is located in an urban area with the second largest population density in Brazil and that bats are one of the most important groups to host zoonotic pathogens, the high species richness found highlights the importance of long-term monitoring in these areas within the One Health approach.
Don Wilson (Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, USA) revised a previous version of the manuscript. JAT and RLMN received Masters and PhD scholarships from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil. RG has received researcher grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq 304355/2018-6) and financial support from Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ; E-26/010.001597/2019), Brazil. RM has received support from CNPq (313963/2018-5) and FAPERJ (E-26/203.274/2017, E-26/210.254/2018, E-26/200.967/2021), Brazil. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz - Fiocruz
Sampling was carried out under SISBio permit 19037-1 and SisGen authorisation A46B0E1. Fieldwork followed protocols defined by the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2011) and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation's Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA/Fiocruz) LM-2/18.
RM, RG, CA and JAT designed the project; JAT, IV, RLMN, ACDPM, LFMJ, MAAK, CLR, MB, GCA, BA and SFCN performed field and laboratory work; JAT, RLMN and DD identified specimens; JAT and RLMN contributed in data analyses; JAT, RLMN, RFS and RM wrote the first draft; all authors read and approved the final version.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.