= 0.147). Lygaeidae (Hemiptera) was the most important prey for both sites, with this prey being “Secondary” in El Simbral (%IRI: 62.9%) and “Accesorial” in Tuctumpaya (%IRI: 44.8%). The remaining items were considered as “Accidental” (%IRI: < 25%) (Table 2). The plant material weights indicated that L. etheridgei is omnivorous in El Simbral (%W Plant material: 47.924%, between 11-50%), and herbivorous in Tuctumpaya (%W Plant material: 68.865%, > 51%). In both cases, no other prey category surpassed 15% (Figure 5). The effective number of species from the pitfall traps was higher in El Simbral (14.52, q = 1) than in Tuctumpaya (11.38, q = 1). The selection ratios show that the El Simbral population selected positively for Lygaeidae (Wi = 14.941 5.245, P < 0.004), whereas there was negative selection against Anthomyiidae (Wi = 0.215 0.283, P < 0.004), Formicidae (Wi = 0.041 0.076, P < 0.004), Cicadelidae (Wi = 0.09 0.239, P < 0.004) and Drosophilidae (Wi = 0.057 0.151, P < 0.004), (P values compared with Bonferroni level = 0.004). In the Tuctumpaya population we found positive selection for Lygaeidae (Wi = 15.224 7.481, P < 0.004), whereas there was negative selection against Anthomyiidae (Wi = 0.11 0.08, P < 0.004), Cicadelidae (Wi = 0.157 0.244, P < 0.004), (P values compared with Bonferroni level = 0.004). There was no selection for the unmentioned prey categories in either study site (Figure 6).
As multivariate homogeneity was found in the group dispersions (F = 0.411, P = 0.529, permutations = 9999), the Permanova analysis was used. The Permanovaanalysis showed no significant differences in diet between the El Simbral and Tuctumpaya populations (F = 1.036, P = 0.409, permutations = 9999), which is consistent with the high overlap value of the Pianka index (