Resource Ephemerality Drives Social Foraging in Bats

Abstract

In BriefUsing miniature tags, Egert-Berg et al. record bats' movement and social interactions. Whereas species foraging on ephemeral resources search in groups, switching foraging sites, species foraging on predictable resources search alone, returning to the same sites. The results suggest a connection between resource predictability and group foraging. SUMMARYObservations of animals feeding in aggregations are often interpreted as events of social foraging, but it can be difficult to determine whether the animals arrived at the foraging sites after collective search [1][2][3][4] or whether they found the sites by following a leader [5, 6] or even independently, aggregating as an artifact of food availability [7, 8]. Distinguishing between these explanations is important, because functionally, they might have very different consequences. In the first case, the animals could benefit from the presence of conspecifics, whereas in the second and third, they often suffer from increased competition [3,[9][10][11][12][13]. Using novel miniature sensors, we recorded GPS tracks and audio of five species of bats, monitoring their movement and interactions with conspecifics, which could be inferred from the audio recordings. We examined the hypothesis that food distribution plays a key role in determining social foraging patterns [14][15][16]. Specifically, this hypothesis predicts that searching for an ephemeral resource (whose distribution in time or space is hard to predict) is more likely to favor social foraging [10,[13][14][15] than searching for a predictable resource. The movement and social interactions differed between bats foraging on ephemeral versus predictable resources. Ephemeral species changed foraging sites and showed large temporal variation nightly. They aggregated with conspecifics as was supported by playback experiments and computer simulations. In contrast, predictable species were never observed near conspecifics and showed high spatial fidelity to the same foraging sites over multiple nights. Our results suggest that resource (un)predictability influences the costs and benefits of social foraging. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWe compared the movement and social foraging behavior of five bat species (representing four families), which cover a wide range of foraging styles and exploit different resources (see Table 1). Two species rely on ephemeral resources (henceforth the ''ephemeral foragers''): (1) the greater mouse-tailed bat (Rhinopoma microphyllum, Rhinopomatidae), an open-space insectivorous bat that preys on ephemeral insect swarms [17], and (2) the Mexican fish-eating bat (Myotis vivesi, Vespertilionidae), which forages primarily over marine waters [18, 19], where it feeds on local upwellings of fish and crustaceans [18, 19] whose exact location is difficult to predict on any given night. Indeed, our analysis of the spatial distribution of marine chlorophyll (a proxy of marine food availability [20, 21]) indicates low predictability of food spatial distribution over consecutive nights ( Figure...

Behaviour, biology, and evolution of vocal learning in bats

“…Another example of vocal learning involves Egyptian fruit bats, Rousettus aegyptiacus, a species in the family Pteropodidae, which uses lingual echolocation (tongue clicks) to enter and roost in caves and while foraging [62,63]. This species has multiple call types in its repertoire [10] and often emits vocalisations during agonistic interactions in the roost [64].…”

The Monumental Mistake of Evicting Bats from Archaeological Sites—A Reflection from New Delhi

“…The mouse-tailed bats have somewhat short and blunt wings and are weak but persistent fliers [9]. They usually feed at high altitude and 10 km or more from the roost [16]. In contrast, the tomb bats have longer and narrower wings, which facilitate faster and straighter flight, and they probably fly much further [35].…”

“…Bats are incredibly efficient consumers of flying insects [12,13] and can control and suppress populations of pests [14,15]. To find food, some bats, including those considered in this paper, hunt socially [16] and communicate over long distances [17][18][19], thereby rapidly congregating at rich feeding sites [20,21], for example, where migrations or outbreaks of pest insects occur [22,23].…”

Simultaneous monitoring of the same animals with PIT-tags and sensor nodes causes no system interference

“…Recent technological advances have led to the miniaturization of these devices, creating new opportunities for studies of small animals (Ripperger et al 2019c). Another key advance in ‘next-generation’ biologgers is a diverse array of sensors such as accelerometers, magnetometers, or air pressure sensors, which autonomously collect and process data and give additional insights into the animal’s behaviour, performance, body posture, or flight height (O’Mara et al 2019; Williams et al 2017), which can be useful for studying foraging (Conenna et al 2019; Egert-Berg et al 2018; O’Mara et al 2019) or social behaviour (Ripperger et al 2019a; Ripperger et al 2019b). However, due to the battery weight limitation and the rather high power demand of some tags, observation periods are often limited to only a few days or weeks.…”