N sections also supported smaller, vegetated patches that may very well be occupied by a person mature male. Inside a plot of 4 m for example, the 3 species maintained different perching websites and agonistic behaviors typically took place no matter size (the smallest could interfer with the largest), as was observed in 3 coexisting species of Leucorrhinia (Singer 1990). Similarly, employing marked folks, interspecific pairing was observed, but copulation was in no way observed, apparently mainly because males had difficulty preserving the copulatory tandem. Similar observations had been recorded between Libellula quadrimaculata females and L. depressa males (Paine 1994). It is probable that there is a degree of similarity in anal appendages and female prothorax from the three congeneric species that enabled heterospecific pairing (Pinhey 1963; Lieftinck 1981). Moreover, intra- (between males) and intersexual interactions with congenerics suggested a poor recognition in between the three dragonfly species. Such mistaken species recognition was also reported in between two closely connected species of damselflies, Calopteryx virgo and C. splendens (Tynkkynen et al. 2005). In Odonata, interspecific interference was shown to exclude conspecifics from foragingKhelifa et al. areas (Baker 1981) and have an effect on larval habitat use (Suhling 1996; Suutari et al. 2004). Close to the Indian Ocean, two arboreal day geckos, Phelsuma ornata and P. cepediana, shared exactly the same tropical forest (Harmon PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20145226 et al. 2007). Removal experiments from the latter species induced the increase in abundance on the later one particular, which highlighted the impact of interspecific interactions involving these two congenerics. Determined by this assumption, our field experiment was performed to investigate possible shifts in resource utilization (microhabitat occupancy) in the smaller sized species (O. c. anceps) following removal of larger congenerics. It showed that O. c. anceps preferred highlyvegetated locations, and in contrast for the study on geckos (Harmon et al. 2007), its occurrence in that precise microhabitat was not the outcome of exclusion by bigger species. The even spacing of body size of species dictated by Hutchinson (1959) was not discovered within the three species studied when the entire program was considered (excluding habitat heterogeneity), mainly because O. c. anceps and O. chrysostigma, displaying precisely the same breeding behavior, also had quite similar size. Brown and Wilson (1956) and Hutchinson (1959) concluded that coexistence is just not probable in such a case. Even spacing of Castanospermine morphology and physique size has been noticed in some insect groups, including Coleopterans (Brandl and Topp 1985) and Dipterans (Syrphidae) (Gilbert et al. 1985). Lots of animals require territories to improve their fitness through the breeding season. Dragonflies show elaborate territorial behavior (Corbet 1999). The mature male guards an region inside a wetland and struggles with other males in an effort to keep his territory and reproduce (Corbet 1999). By occupying it, the individual will lessen the restricted resource, which can be space, not only for conspecifics butJournal of Insect Science | http://www.insectscience.orgJournal of Insect Science: Vol. 13 | Article 71 also for heterospecifics with comparable morphological traits (colour, size, or structural morphology) and comparable habitat preferences. Such cases are common in between congenerics (Warren and Lawton 1987; Juliano and Lawton 1990). In our study, it was supposed that the 3 species interacted consistently to own.