Comparison of niche overlaps and niche width between species at broad and regional scales
Broad scale: At the larger spatial scale of Ladakh, the elliptical projections of niche space indicated that the three species separated best along the first two dimensions, albeit with significant overlaps (Figure 4). The niche overlap analysis suggested that OL was very likely to be found in the microhabitats that are inhabited byON (mean = 40 %) and OM (mean= 50%) (Figure 5).Both OM and ON were less likely to be found in microhabitats inhabited by other species (mean < 15%) (Figure 5). The n-dimensional niche width constructed was different across species (Pr(>F) = <2e-16 ***, F value = 6541, df = 2), with OL having the smallest niche, OM having an intermediate-sized niche, and ON having the largest niche as evidenced by Turkey HSD tests (Figure 6).
Regional scales: When the species were subdivided based on location (OL South-East Ladakh, ON North-West Ladakh, ON South-East Ladakh, OM North-West Ladakh, OM South-East Ladakh), elliptical projection of niche spaces indicated significant overlaps between niches of ON and OL in the South-East, the niche of OM in the South-East and the North-West, and ON in North-West Ladakh being distinct with no significant overlaps with any other niche (Figure 7). The niche overlap analysis suggested that all species across geographic areas had unique niches and were unlikely to be found in microhabitats of other species (Figure 8). The niche width of species across geographic areas was different at the regional scale (Pr(>F) = <2e-16 ***, F value = 9570, df = 4) and revealed contrasting patterns to those recovered at the broad scale. Tukey HSD tests suggested that the niche width of OM in the North-West was the largest, followed by ON and OL in the South-East, having the second and third largest niches, respectively (Figure 9). The niche width of ON and OM in the South-East did not differ (diff = 2.68, p adj = 0.089) and were among the smallest niches in comparison (Figure 8).