Spatial networks differ when food supply changes: Foraging strategy of Egyptian fruit bats

Bachorec, Erik; Horáček, Ivan; Hulva, Pavel; Konečný, Adam; Lučan, Radek; Jedlička, Petr; Shohdi, Wael; Řeřucha, Šimon; Abi-Said, Mounir; Bartonička, Tomáš

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229110

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Selection of roosts with high betweenness may facilitate access to information in a similar manner as proposed for the tree‐roosting giant noctules ( Nyctalus lasiopterus , Fortuna et al ., 2009). Moreover, as spring is the season of scarce food resources, we propose that multiple core roosts during this season may be beneficial for information transfer regarding suitable foraging sites (Bachorec et al ., 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, we propose that these ‘socially exploratory’ fruit bats are likely to play an important role in connecting and providing valuable information to individuals that do not roost together (Whitehead, 2008; Chaverri, 2010; Farine & Whitehead, 2015). Though we have no evidence for information transfer, we presume that association with and/or following of these central individuals may facilitate access to public information on roosting or foraging sites (Bachorec et al ., 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since grouping with kin reduces numerous costs and having more relatives as roost mates could result in easier access to information on both roosting and foraging sites (Wilkinson, 1992; Rossiter et al ., 2002; Frank, 2003), we hypothesized a link between relatedness and roost sharing. As our previous results have shown that food resources become scarce in spring (Bachorec et al ., 2020), we investigated two distinct seasons, comparing data from winter and spring. As food distribution is likely to affect foraging associations, there could be associated impacts on roosting associations and dynamics related to a need for increased information transfer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Egyptian fruit bats do not preferentially roost with their relatives

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roosts provide bats with place for daytime sheltering, protection from weather and predators, mating, and social interaction. Movements between multiple roosts are often necessary, either due to limited roost life, changes in roost conditions or demands at different times of the year. Information transfer is an important contributor to day-roosting behaviour and typically exhibits non-random social assortment dynamics. Some individuals appear to explore and share roost discoveries more often than others, though it remains unclear whether associations are stronger between close relatives than less related individuals. In the present study, network analysis, in combination with genetic and spatial data, was used to explore the roosting behaviour of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) within an isolated deme. Our results showed that the roosts had distinct core-periphery structure. The core of the winter roost network was represented by only two roosts, while in spring, the season of food scarcity, the core was represented by multiple roosts, suggesting their potential role as centres, where information about roosts and foraging sites is exchanged. We found no relationship between relatedness and roost sharing over two seasons. These results provide strong support that Egyptian fruit bats do not roost preferentially with relatives, in contrast to many animal populations where individuals preferentially associate with kin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Egyptian fruit bats do not preferentially roost with their relatives

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…to change between years due to births, deaths, dispersal, and addition of tagged bats. We chose to construct these networks based upon the entire maternity season because our goal was to use intraroost networks to evaluate cohabitation networks, which are typically based on seasons (Bachorec et al, 2020;Chaverri, 2010) or years (Kerth et al, 2011;Wilkinson et al, 2019). Data collected from Mammoth readers in 2017 were not included because antennas were placed in areas within the roost that few bats visited, and antennas were relocated in 2018.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social networks based on frequency of roost cohabitation do not reflect association rates of Myotis lucifugus within their roosts

Waag

Treanor

Kropczynski

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats are a group of mammals well known for forming dynamic social groups. Studies of bat social structures are often based upon the frequency at which bats occupy the same roosts because observing bats directly is not always possible. However, it is not always clear how closely bats occupying the same roost associate with each other, obscuring whether associations result from social relationships or factors such as shared preferences for roosts. Our goal was to determine if bats cohabitating buildings were also found together inside roosts by using anti‐collision technology for PIT tags, which enables simultaneous detection of multiple tags. We PIT‐tagged 293 female little brown myotis ( Myotis lucifugus ) and installed antennas within two buildings used as maternity roosts in Yellowstone National Park. Antennas were positioned at roost entryways to generate cohabitation networks and along regions of attic ceilings in each building to generate intraroost networks based on proximity of bats to each other. We found that intraroost and cohabitation networks of buildings were significantly correlated, with the same bats tending to be linked in both networks, but that bats cohabitating the same building often roosted apart, leading to differing assessments of social structure. Cohabitation rates implied that bats associate with a greater number of their roost‐mates than was supported by observations within the roost. This caused social networks built upon roost cohabitation rates to be denser, smaller in diameter, and contain nodes with higher average degree centrality. These results show that roost cohabitation does not reflect preference for roost‐mates in little brown myotis, as is often inferred from similar studies, and that social network analyses based on cohabitation may provide misleading results.

show abstract

“…These studies found that time of emergence and return to day roost sites also varied according to season, age, sex, and depended on the intraspecific variation in a range of ecological parameters. The availability of food is an important component in this relation and Lučan et al (2016) and Bachorec et al (2020) have shown a negative correlation between fruit bat home range and food availability. Similar relations have been noted in other groups of mammals, for example, the rodent Octodon degus (Molina, 1782) (Octodontidae), which spent more time outside their burrows foraging during the nonreproductive period because of food scarcity compared to breeding period (Ebensperger and Hurtado 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of emergence and cave return, and duration of nocturnal activity in an endemic Malagasy fruit bat

Ramanantsalama

2020

Trop Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats emerge from their day roost after dusk and different factors can affect the timing of departure, return, and duration of nocturnal activities. This study provides information on the time of emergence and return of an endemic Malagasy fruit bat, Rousettus madagascariensis, in a cave located in the Réserve Spéciale d’Ankarana, northern Madagascar. Individuals were captured in a narrow passage between the roost and cave exit and capture time for each individual was noted. Variation according to sex, age, and body condition, as well as the influence of season, and the sunset and sunrise time were analyzed. During the dry season, individuals started to emerge at 1913 hours and returned to the cave generally by 0505 hours; the duration of time outside the cave during the dry season was higher in adult females (0952 hours) followed by subadult males (0937 hours), sub-adult females (0931 hours), and adult males (0910 hours). During the wet season, individuals exited at 1926 hours and returned at 0351 hours; as in the dry season, adult females spent more time outside the cave (0833 hours), than sub-adult females (0800 hours), and adult males (0752 hours). The period of emergence varied according to the age and sex classes, and time of predawn return associated with the previous nocturnal activity. The period of return was influenced by season, and age and sex classes. Such information is useful to quantify shifts in bat ecology, especially for endemic species with limited distribution or those playing an important role in ecosystem services.

show abstract

Spatial networks differ when food supply changes: Foraging strategy of Egyptian fruit bats

Cited by 17 publications

References 85 publications

Egyptian fruit bats do not preferentially roost with their relatives

Egyptian fruit bats do not preferentially roost with their relatives

Social networks based on frequency of roost cohabitation do not reflect association rates of Myotis lucifugus within their roosts

Timing of emergence and cave return, and duration of nocturnal activity in an endemic Malagasy fruit bat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About