Sociality across species: spatial proximity of newborn bats promotes heterospecific social bonding

Ancillotto, Leonardo; Allegrini, Claudia; Serangeli, Maria Tiziana; Jones, Gareth; Russo, Danilo

doi:10.1093/beheco/aru193

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In T. brasiliensis , nose‐rubbing is performed together with a specific vocalization, in individuals that were experimentally re‐united after being apart, thus representing a ‘greeting’ behaviour probably aimed to reinforce social bonds (Bohn et al, ). Likewise, huddling (accomplished through physical body contact between bats whose bodies typically also vibrate) and reciprocal grooming in captive Pipistrellus kuhlii and Hypsugo savii are more common among colony mates (Ancillotto, Serangeli & Russo, ; Ancillotto et al, ).…”

Section: How Do Bats Communicate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social communication in bats

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats represent one of the most diverse mammalian orders, not only in terms of species numbers, but also in their ecology and life histories. Many species are known to use ephemeral and/or unpredictable resources that require substantial investment to find and defend, and also engage in social interactions, thus requiring significant levels of social coordination. To accomplish these tasks, bats must be able to communicate; there is now substantial evidence that demonstrates the complexity of bat communication and the varied ways in which bats solve some of the problems associated with their unique life histories. However, while the study of communication in bats is rapidly growing, it still lags behind other taxa. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of communication in bats, from the reasons why they communicate to the diversity and application of different signal modalities. The most widespread form of communication is the transmission of a signaller's characteristics, such as species identity, sex, individual identity, group membership, social status and body condition, and because many species of bats can rely little on vision due to their nocturnal lifestyles, it is assumed that sound and olfaction are particularly important signalling modes. For example, research suggests that secretions from specialized glands, often in combination with urine and saliva, are responsible for species recognition in several species. These olfactory signals may also convey information about sex and colony membership. Olfaction may be used in combination with sound, particularly in species that emit constant frequency (CF) echolocation calls, to recognize conspecifics from heterospecifics, yet their simple structure and high frequency do not allow much information of individual identity to be conveyed over long distances. By contrast, social calls may encode a larger number of cues of individual identity, and their lower frequencies increase their range of detection. Social calls are also known to deter predators, repel competitors from foraging patches, attract group mates to roost sites, coordinate foraging activities, and are used during courtship. In addition to sound, visual displays such as wing flapping or hovering may be used during courtship, and swarming around roost sites may serve as a visual cue of roost location. However, visual communication in bats still remains a poorly studied signal modality. Finally, the most common form of tactile communication known in bats is social grooming, which may be used to signal reproductive condition, but also to facilitate and strengthen cooperative interactions. Overall, this review demonstrates the rapid advances made in the study of bat social communication during recent years, and also identifies topics that require further study, particularly those that may allow us to understand adaptation to rapidly changing environmental conditions.

show abstract

Section: How Do Bats Communicate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social communication in bats

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While many studies have found negative effects on brown trout following interspecific interactions between the two species (Korsu et al, 2007;Spens et al, 2007;Závorka et al, 2017;Öhlund et al, 2008; but see Blanchet et al, 2007;Korsu et al, 2009), the underlying mechanisms behind the feeding shift have not yet been explained. There is evidence that interspecific social interactions during early ontogenetic stages can shape the social behavior (Ancillotto, Allegrini, Serangeli, Jones, & Russo, 2015;Arnold & Taborsky, 2010) and mate choice of individuals (Verzijden & ten Cate, 2007). Species discrimination in fish may be based on visual (Warburton & Lees, 1996), behavioral, and chemical cues (Burnard, Gozlan, & Griffiths, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific association of brown trout (Salmo trutta) with non‐native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) at the fry stage

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of non‐native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Europe has led to displacement and decreasing populations of native brown trout (Salmo trutta). Some studies have found that brown trout shift to a diet niche similar to brook trout when the two species live in sympatry, which conflicts with the competitive exclusion principle. A change in feeding niche may be a sign of early interspecific association and social learning, leading to behavioral changes. As a first step to address this possibility, it is essential to assess the interspecific association between the species during the early ontogenetic life stages. In this study, we therefore assess whether juvenile brown trout associate with non‐native juvenile brook trout to the same extent as with conspecifics by setting up two experiments: (i) a binomial choice test allowing visual and chemical cues to estimate the species specificity of group preference, and (ii) an association test without physical barriers to estimate the degree of association of a focal brown trout with a group of either conspecifics or heterospecifics. In experiment (1), we found that focal juvenile brown trout preferred to associate with the stimuli groups and did not discriminate either against conspecific or heterospecific groups. Furthermore, more active individuals showed stronger preference for the stimuli group than less active ones, regardless of species. In experiment (2), we found that brook trout groups had a tighter group structure than brown trout groups, and that focal brown trout showed stronger association with brook trout than with brown trout. These results indicate that brown trout may associate with brook trout at an early life stage, which would allow for interspecific social learning to occur. Future studies should look closer into causes and consequences of interspecific association and social learning, including potential effects on the phenotype selection in brown trout populations.

show abstract

“…Such cavities are often present in standing dead trees that must be easy to locate, reducing the amount of energy needed to find suitable roosting sites (Russo et al., , ). Barbastella barbastellus may sometimes roost in different habitats, such as managed forest (Russo et al., ) or even clay badlands (Ancillotto, Allegrini, Serangeli, Jones, & Russo, ; Ancillotto, Cistrone, et al., ), where studies analogous to ours should be undertaken for comparison.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Kinship among group members (Kerth, ; Rossiter, Jones, Ransome, & Barratt, ) or persistence of cryptic social subunits established among adults or at an early life stage (Ancillotto, Serangeli, & Russo, ; Ancillotto, Allegrini, et al., ; Ancillotto, Cistrone, et al., ) might play an important role in influencing social interactions and maintaining cohesion and should also be addressed in future work. We highlight that the importance of thoroughly understanding roosting behavior trespasses its physiological and eco‐ethological interests because many forest bat species are threatened by forestry (Russo et al., ): Sustainable management may only be achieved improving comprehension of how and why bats select essential resources in forest ecosystems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociality influences thermoregulation and roost switching in a forest bat using ephemeral roosts

Russo

Cistrone

Budinski

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In summer, many temperate bat species use daytime torpor, but breeding females do so less to avoid interferences with reproduction. In forest-roosting bats, deep tree cavities buffer roost microclimate from abrupt temperature oscillations and facilitate thermoregulation. Forest bats also switch roosts frequently, so thermally suitable cavities may be limiting. We tested how barbastelle bats (Barbastella barbastellus), often roosting beneath flaking bark in snags, may thermoregulate successfully despite the unstable microclimate of their preferred cavities. We assessed thermoregulation patterns of bats roosting in trees in a beech forest of central Italy. Although all bats used torpor, females were more often normothermic. Cavities were poorly insulated, but social thermoregulation probably overcomes this problem. A model incorporating the presence of roost mates and group size explained thermoregulation patterns better than others based, respectively, on the location and structural characteristics of tree roosts and cavities, weather, or sex, reproductive or body condition. Homeothermy was recorded for all subjects, including nonreproductive females: This probably ensures availability of a warm roosting environment for nonvolant juveniles.Homeothermy may also represent a lifesaver for bats roosting beneath loose bark, very exposed to predators, because homeothermic bats may react quickly in case of emergency. We also found that barbastelle bats maintain group cohesion when switching roosts: This may accelerate roost occupation at the end of a night, quickly securing a stable microclimate in the newly occupied cavity. Overall, both thermoregulation and roost-switching patterns were satisfactorily explained as adaptations to a structurally and thermally labile roosting environment. K E Y W O R D Sbody temperature, Chiroptera, snag, torpor, tree, vespertilionids

show abstract

Sociality across species: spatial proximity of newborn bats promotes heterospecific social bonding

Cited by 22 publications

References 54 publications

Social communication in bats

Social communication in bats

Interspecific association of brown trout (Salmo trutta) with non‐native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) at the fry stage

Sociality influences thermoregulation and roost switching in a forest bat using ephemeral roosts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About