Phylogeny and foraging behaviour shape modular morphological variation in bat humeri

Abstract

Bats show a remarkable ecological diversity that is reflected both in dietary and foraging guilds (FGs). Cranial ecomorphological adaptations linked to diet have been widely studied in bats, using a variety of anatomical, computational and mathematical approaches. However, foraging-related ecomorphological adaptations and the concordance between cranial and postcranial morphological adaptations remain unexamined in bats and limited to the interpretation of traditional aerodynamic properties of the wing (e.g. wing loading [WL] and aspect ratio [AR]). For this reason, the postcranial ecomorphological diversity in bats and its drivers remain understudied. Using 3D virtual modelling and geometric morphometrics (GMM), we explored the phylogenetic,

Variation in cross‐sectional shape and biomechanical properties of the bat humerus under Wolff's law

“…Similar patterns of allometry‐corrected and size‐dependent differences between shape and biomechanical data suggest foraging and roosting behavior repatterned humeral morpho‐biomechanical variation and its scaling. Foraging behavior has also been reported to shape modular patterns of humeral morphological variation in bats (López‐Aguirre et al, 2020). Similar results have been reported for femoral morphology bats, varying based on size and linking biomechanical aspects of long bones (i.e., increase in robusticity) with increases in body mass (Louzada, Nogueira, & Pessôa, 2019).…”

“…Despite study of the evolutionary drivers of modern ecomorphological diversity in bats (Arbour, Curtis, & Santana, 2019; Hedrick et al, 2019; Rossoni, Assis, Giannini, & Marroig, 2017; Rossoni, Costa, Giannini, & Marroig, 2019; Thiagavel et al, 2018), the relationship between ecological traits (e.g., diet and echolocation) and locomotory‐related morphological adaptations remains unclear (Gaudioso, Martínez, Bárquez & Díaz, 2020; López‐Aguirre, Hand, Koyabu, Tu, & Wilson, 2020; Sánchez & Carrizo, 2021). Foraging behavior has recently been correlated with modular morphological variation in bat humeri (López‐Aguirre et al, 2020). The advent of three‐dimensional imaging techniques has allowed for the development of new methods to study the morpho‐biomechanical properties of bones, providing new insights into the evolution and ecology of functional performance (Patel, Ruff, Simons, & Organ, 2013; Pratt, Johnston, Walker, & Cooper, 2018; Simons, Hieronymus, & O'Connor, 2011; Voeten et al, 2018).…”

Untangling the ecological signal in the dental morphology in the bat superfamily Noctilionoidea

“…Representing ∼17% of modern chiropteran species diversity, noctilionoid bats encompass the entire dietary range found in the more than 1400 species of bats (Rojas et al, 2016; Simmons and Cirranello, 2021). Feeding ecology (diet and foraging behaviours) has been repeatedly linked to the taxonomic and morphological diversification of this group (Dumont et al, 2012; López-Aguirre et al, 2021a; Monteiro & Nogueira, 2011; Rojas et al, 2018; Rossoni et al, 2019). Stemming from an ancestral insectivorous diet, noctilionoid bats have adapted to feed on blood, seeds, terrestrial vertebrates, fish, fruit, leaves, nectar and pollen (Rojas et al, 2011).…”

“…carnivory and nectarivory) have been found to converge across Noctilionoidea (Arbour et al, 2019; Freeman, 1995; Morales et al, 2019; Santana & Cheung, 2016). As such, foraging strategies represent a significant driver of phenotypic variation in bats, with feeding ecology correlating with both cranial and postcranial morphology (Gaudioso et al, 2020; López-Aguirre et al, 2021a; Morales et al, 2019). An emerging body of research has also recently begun to focus on molecular and morphological adaptations in sensory systems associated with adaptation to particular dietary niches (Arbour et al, 2021; Hall et al, in press ; Leiser-Miller & Santana, 2020).…”

“…Dental topography has also been an informative tool to reconstruct the diet of extinct mammals and to discover and document macroecological patterns (López-Torres et al, 2018; Prufrock et al, 2016; Selig et al, 2020; Ungar, 2004). In bats, DTA has only been applied in two studies (López-Aguirre et al, 2021b; Santana et al, 2011). Santana et al (2011) explored differences between bat insectivores, omnivores and herbivores, finding higher topographic complexity in frugivores.…”