Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

All You Can Eat: High Performance Capacity and Plasticity in the Common Big-Eared Bat, Micronycteris microtis (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae)

  • Sharlene E. Santana ,

    sesantana@ucla.edu

    Affiliation Center for Society and Genetics and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America

  • Inga Geipel,

    Affiliation Institute of Experimental Ecology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

  • Elizabeth R. Dumont,

    Affiliation Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Margareta B. Kalka,

    Affiliation Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America

  • Elisabeth K. V. Kalko

    Affiliations Institute of Experimental Ecology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama

All You Can Eat: High Performance Capacity and Plasticity in the Common Big-Eared Bat, Micronycteris microtis (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae)

  • Sharlene E. Santana, 
  • Inga Geipel, 
  • Elizabeth R. Dumont, 
  • Margareta B. Kalka, 
  • Elisabeth K. V. Kalko
PLOS
x

Abstract

Ecological specialization and resource partitioning are expected to be particularly high in the species-rich communities of tropical vertebrates, yet many species have broader ecological niches than expected. In Neotropical ecosystems, Neotropical leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae) are one of the most ecologically and functionally diverse vertebrate clades. Resource partitioning in phyllostomids might be achieved through differences in the ability to find and process food. We selected Micronycteris microtis, a very small (5–7 g) animalivorous phyllostomid, to explore whether broad resource use is associated with specific morphological, behavioral and performance traits within the phyllostomid radiation. We documented processing of natural prey and measured bite force in free-ranging M. microtis and other sympatric phyllostomids. We found that M. microtis had a remarkably broad diet for prey size and hardness. For the first time, we also report the consumption of vertebrates (lizards), which makes M. microtis the smallest carnivorous bat reported to date. Compared to other phyllostomids, M. microtis had the highest bite force for its size and cranial shape and high performance plasticity. Bite force and cranial shape appear to have evolved rapidly in the M. microtis lineage. High performance capacity and high efficiency in finding motionless prey might be key traits that allow M. microtis, and perhaps other species, to successfully co-exist with other gleaning bats.

Introduction

Tropical forests are best known for a high biodiversity that is unmatched by any other terrestrial ecosystem. It has been estimated that one hectare of tropical rainforest can contain 300 species of trees, and may harbor over 41,000 species of arthropods and over 100 species of terrestrial vertebrates [1], [2], [3]. What are the ecomorphological mechanisms that allow species to coexist and partition resources within such diverse communities? Niche theory asserts that sympatric organisms should differ in their use of shared resources as most of these are likely to be limited, and species are predicted to evolve higher degrees of ecological, morphological or behavioral specialization within species-rich communities [4], [5], [6], [7]. Nonetheless, some vertebrate assemblages in the tropics may comprise many species with broad ecological niches, a phenomenon that does not match predictions derived from niche theory. Examples include dendrobatid frogs, some of which are generalist predators that coexist with anuran specialists [8], and Neotropical gleaning bats (Phyllostomidae) [9].

Within Neotropical gleaning bats, the common big-eared bat, Micronycteris microtis (Miller, 1898, Phyllostomidae; Figure 1) is a species that takes food from substrates [10] and consumes an unusually wide morphological, ecological and taxonomic spectrum of animal prey when compared to other bats [11], [12]. Prey items consumed by M. microtis range from beetles, which are relatively stiff and brittle, to caterpillars, which are ductile and soft [13], [14]. Dietary items span 12 arthropod orders and are usually large with respect to the size of the bats (body mass: 5–7 g, body length of 55–65 mm; Figure 1). Given the relatively broad spectrum of prey consumed by M. microtis, this species presents an interesting model to explore the ecomorphological traits that allow for broad resource use within the constraints posed by species-rich tropical communities.

thumbnail
Figure 1. Micronycteris microtis consuming a katydid.

This image illustrates the relatively large size of some prey items included in the diet of this bat (Photo by Christian Ziegler).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.g001

In Neotropical ecosystems, bats are the second most abundant and diverse group of mammals [15], [16], [17]. Therefore, elucidating the mechanisms that might contribute to resource partitioning among bat species would allow for a better understanding of species-rich tropical communities in general. Although it is unclear how bats, and in particular, gleaning species partition resources, current data suggest that niche distinction might be achieved through either differences in the mode and ability to find prey through echolocation and other sensory systems [18], [19], or differences in traits related to food processing, such as bite force and plasticity in feeding behavior [20], [21], [22]. Bite force in bats is strongly predicted by cranial morphology [23], [24] and is a determinant of the prey that are included in the bats’ diet [20]. Recent studies also suggest that most animal-eating species exhibit low plasticity in this performance trait, that is, these bats do not switch their biting behavior as much as frugivores do in response to prey hardness [21]. Insectivores mainly process prey using their molars, and the structure of these teeth is closely associated with their ability to break down prey [25].

Although the interplay among morphology, performance and behavior seem to have an important role in niche partitioning among bat species, there have been at least two main obstacles to understanding the connection between these factors and resource use. First, although we have a general idea about the diets of many species, there are still insufficient diet data for most. Second, it is generally difficult to obtain behavioral information for bats feeding on a wide spectrum of prey. Our purpose was to take advantage of a unique opportunity to quantify the feeding behavior of M. microtis to enable a broad understanding of the ecomorphological factors underlying resource partitioning among Neotropical gleaning bats.

Given the relatively broad spectrum of prey consumed by M. microtis, we used this species as a model to explore if and how broad resource use is associated with characteristics of cranial morphology, feeding behavior and bite performance. We hypothesized that cranial and behavioral traits related to the generation and modulation of bite force are important ecomorphological factors contributing to M. microtis’ broad resource use. We predicted that M. microtis has evolved a cranial morphology that allows it to achieve relatively high bite forces and levels of performance plasticity (i.e. the ability to modulate bite force through behavioral changes in response to prey type) when compared to closely related and sympatric animal-eating bats who consume a more limited prey spectrum. We expected M. microtis to use its molars predominantly during feeding, but to increase bite force through changes in biting behavior when switching from soft to hard prey, and to vary its biting behavior during the consumption of individual prey items. High performance capacity and behavioral plasticity in M. microtis would allow higher flexibility in the use of resources and could be key factors promoting its successful coexistence with other gleaning bats.

Methods

Feeding behavior

We filmed processing of native prey captured by Micronycteris microtis on Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Panama. Observations were made at feeding roosts located under the external stairs of three residential buildings of the field station, about 2 m from the forest edge. The roosts have been consistently used by M. microtis since 1991. A colony of 4–8 (rarely 10–12) individuals used one or two of the roosts every night for social interactions, resting, and feeding. Video recordings were made on 80 nights between 2002 and 2009, usually encompassing several hours of videotaping per night. We placed digital cameras (Type VK-121/IR or Sony Nightshot) on a tripod about 1.2 m from the roost. For most of the recordings, infrared-panels equipped with 32 LEDs (TS AlGaAS infrared 875 nm, 5 mm Ø, HSDL-4230) were used as light sources. To zoom in on prey consumed, we adjusted the camera lens (Eneo DC-Motorzoom Lens EC-Series, F1, 8/8–80 mm) with a remote control. Presence of the camera, which was set outside the main flyways of the animals, and the operation of the motor-zoom did not noticeably affect bat behavior.

Videos were analyzed to describe the types and sizes of prey items, and the feeding behaviors used by the bats. We selected sample of videos in which prey items were easily discernible and identified to order or family level. Prey size (length and minimum width) was estimated by using 34 mm as average forearm length of M. microtis as a reference scale. Size measurements of prey were made using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, USA). To further characterize prey items, we collected insects in BCI that were of similar sizes and types as those consumed by bats. We measured the hardness of these in puncture resistance tests performed using a flat-ended needle (1 mm in diameter) attached to a force transducer (see below).

To characterize the feeding behavior of bats and its variation across prey types, we watched video recordings at 1/4 of speed using VLC Media Player (v. 1.0.5 Goldeneye, VideoLAN Team). One observer (SES) counted the total number of bites bats took to eat each individual prey item and categorized each bite as one of four types: shallow bilateral, shallow unilateral, deep bilateral, and deep unilateral [21], [22]. Shallow bites engage the canine and incisor teeth, while deep bites engage the premolar and molar teeth. Unilateral bites use either the left or right tooth row, and bilateral bites simultaneously use both left and right tooth rows. We have demonstrated that bats can use these different bite types to modulate bite force during feeding [21], [22], and that the total number of bites is positively correlated with insect breakdown [25]. Percentages of each bite type and total number of bites were calculated for each prey item and averaged across items of the same taxonomic type (e.g., beetles, cicadas, dragonflies, caterpillars). To assess the behavioral plasticity of M. microtis within feeding sequences on prey items of the same type, we identified 20 of the bites as “start bites” (when <10% of the prey was eaten), “middle bites” (when about 50% of the prey was eaten), and “end bites” (when >80% of the prey was eaten) and used this variable as a factor in subsequent analyses (see below).

Bite force

Adult males and non-pregnant, non-lactating females of Micronycteris microtis were captured at roosts on BCI in mist nets. We measured the bats’ bite force (in Newtons) using a piezoelectric force transducer (Kistler, type 9203, range ±500 N, accuracy 0.01 – 0.1 N; Amherst, NY, USA), attached to a handheld charge amplifier (Kistler, type 5995) and mounted between two bite plates [26]. The tips of the bite plates were covered with medical tape to protect the bats’ teeth from damage and to provide a non-skid surface. We adjusted the distance between the bite plates for each individual bat to accommodate a gape angle of about 30 degrees because variation in gape angle might affect measurements of bite force [27]. Bats were usually eager to bite the transducer, or were stimulated to do so by gentle taps at the sides of their mouth. For each bat, we recorded at least five bite force measurements at each of the the four bite positions described above and selected the maximum values per bite position to calculate means. Once bite force measurements were completed, we took standard body measurements (body mass, length of forearm, length, width and height of head). All procedures were approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (protocol # 2008-11-06-24-08) and the University of Massachusetts (protocol # 26-10-06).

Cranial morphometrics

Ten linear measurements describing skull form were collected from 284 museum specimens, including M. microtis (n  =  6) and 67 other phyllostomid species (a subset of the dataset in Dumont et al. in press). Measurements were adjusted for size using log geometric means [28], and variation was summarized by applying a Principal component (PC) analysis to the correlation matrix and a Varimax rotation. This allowed us to construct statistically independent vectors that summarized size-adjusted morphological variation. Out of these vectors, PC1 described a trend of increasing skull length, reduction of the coronoid process, and decreasing skull and condyle height, and was the best predictor of variation in size-adjusted bite forces (i.e. residual of bite force from a regression against head height; Dumont et al. in press).

Statistical and phylogenetic analyses

We used three approaches to examine the behavioral variation across and within prey types consumed by M. microtis. First, we investigated the variation in biting behavior across prey types using a three-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This analysis evaluated the effect of ‘prey type’ (Table 1) on the percentage of each ‘bite type’ (shallow bilateral, deep unilateral, and deep bilateral bites, all arcsin-transformed to ensure linearity). Since the four ‘bite types’ were expressed as percentages they were not independent from one another, thus we deleted one of the ‘bite type’ categories (shallow unilateral) prior to analyses. This allowed us to test for significance of each factor and to generate accurate error terms. Deleting shallow unilateral bites did not affect the results of the ANOVA, as information about this bite type was reflected in the values of the three remaining categories. Second, we investigated the impact of prey type on the total number of bites by using an ANCOVA. In this case, prey length was designated as a covariate, given that total number of bites was significantly correlated with this size measure (R2 =  0.353, P  =  0.01). Third, we investigated behavioral variation within feeding sequences by using a three-way ANOVA to test for the impact of ‘sequence point’ (start, middle, end) on the proportion of each ‘bite type’.

thumbnail
Table 1. Characteristics of the prey items and feeding behavior of Micronycteris microtis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.t001

To compare the ability of M. microtis to modulate its feeding behavior and performance with respect to other phyllostomid species, we compared measures of behavioral and performance plasticity published by Santana and Dumont [21]. These measures reflect the ability of bats to modulate bite performance through behavior when switching from soft (crickets) to hard prey items (beetles). To calculate behavioral plasticity, we added the absolute values of the differences in percentages of each bite type when bats fed on soft vs. hard prey. To calculate performance plasticity, we first calculated “behaviorally adjusted” bite forces by multiplying the percentage of each bite type by the maximum bite force measured on M. microtis at that bite position. We then calculated the absolute value of the difference between these behaviorally adjusted bite forces on soft and hard items. This value was expressed as a percentage of the bat’s maximum bite force to account for size differences among species.

Changes in the tempo of evolution in cranial morphology, size-adjusted bite force and performance plasticity were investigated by reconstructing the evolutionary rate in the M. microtis lineage and comparing it to the average evolutionary rate across all the species in the dataset. Analyses were run using Dumont et al.’s [in press] species-level phyllostomid phylogeny and following procedures outlined by McPeek [29]. These involve (1) pruning the M. microtis branch from the phylogeny, (2) computing the average evolutionary rate across the lineage, (3) grafting the pruned branch onto the phylogeny, (4) calculating the ancestral state for the pruned node, and (5) computing the evolutionary change along the branch leading to M. microtis. The rates of character evolution along the branch leading to M. microtis were compared to the average rate across phyllostomids using two-tailed t-tests. Analyses were conducted in R 2.11.1 (R Development Core Team, 211) using custom-written scripts and functions from the APE [30] and GEIGER [31] packages.

Results

Dietary composition

We quantified behavior for 247 feeding events corresponding to ten arthropod orders representative of the diet of Micronycteris microtis (Table 1). Prey items varied in length (range: 7.99 to 91.79 mm) and minimum width (range: 0.88 to 8.15 mm; 1.74 to 8.15 mm, excluding wasps). Hardness measured for prey items within these size ranges were consistently below M. microtis’ bite force (Table 1).

Along with prey items previously reported in the diet of M. microtis [12], we recorded for the first time the consumption of vertebrate prey in this genus. Throughout our study, we recorded the consumption of three lizards, apparently small anoles (Figure 2). Out of these three events, image quality only allowed us to quantify bite types from one feeding sequence.

thumbnail
Figure 2. Video snapshot of a group of three Micronycteris microtis, as observed in the roost in Barro Colorado Island, Panama.

The individual in the center on the back of the group is eating a lizard.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.g002

Feeding behavior

Bats generally ate arthropods by repeatedly biting and crushing the prey’s head, or cephalothorax in the case of spiders, and then biting and discarding the wings, antennae and/or legs. Bats mostly used their premolar and molar teeth for the latter task, biting with one or both sides of the jaw (Figure 1). Once the prey’s head had been consumed and appendices had been discarded, bats consumed the thorax and abdomen biting with their molars and premolars and rotating the prey from one side of the jaw to the other. When eating phytophagous and detritivorous prey (caterpillars, beetles, crickets, katydids, phasmids, cockroaches), bats selectively excluded parts of the intestines by dropping part of the abdomen, or separating it from the exoskeleton by side-to-side head movements [12]. Bats ate lizards in a similar fashion as they did arthropods, except that legs were also eaten along with the whole body. Bats started eating the lizard at the head (Figure 2), where they applied multiple molar bites. They continued to consume the lizard by chewing it with the molars using one side of the jaw, a behavior that continued throughout the consumption of the whole of the lizard. Apparently, lizards were eaten completely; the tail was not dropped.

As expected, M. microtis used molar bites predominantly to eat all prey types (Table 1). Nonetheless, the bats changed their feeding behavior significantly with prey type (Table 2). On one hand, they switched between bite types, as demonstrated by the significant ‘prey type x bite type’ interaction term on our ANOVA model (Table 2a). On the other hand, they also used different numbers of bites per prey item across different prey types, even when prey size was accounted for (Table 2b). When consuming individual prey items, bats seemed to vary the proportion of molar bite types used within a feeding sequence (deep unilateral bites: MS  =  15,551.48, F  =  8.97, P  =  0.001; deep bilateral bites: MS  =  9,537.87, F  =  4.24, P  =  0.025).

thumbnail
Table 2. Results from Analyses of Variance testing the effect of type of prey on the feeding behavior of Micronycteris microtis, (a) Effect of ‘prey type’ (from Table 1) on the percentage of bite types (shallow unilateral, shallow bilateral, deep unilateral, deep bilateral), and (b) Effect of ‘prey type’ (from Table 1) on the total number of bites used to eat a prey item, with prey length as a covariate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.t002

Bite performance, plasticity and evolution

We obtained bite force measurements from 17 individual M. microtis (8 males, 9 females). Maximum bite force was 8.25±1.519 N (shallow unilateral: 6.91±2.5 N, shallow bilateral; 7.36±1.7 N, deep unilateral: 7.77±1.6 N, deep bilateral: 8.25±1.5 N). When maximum bite force was corrected for size and plotted against cranial morphology, M. microtis had the highest positive residual of any species tested (Figure 3). The rates of evolution of size-adjusted bite force and cranial morphology were significantly higher in the M. microtis lineage than in the rest of the phyllostomid lineage (bite force: 0.565 vs. 0.029±0.035; t  =  16.836, df  =  35, P  =  1.169 exp-18; PC1: 0.183 vs. 0.064±0.072, t  =  3.424, df  =  63, P  =  0.0005).

thumbnail
Figure 3. Regression of size-adjusted bite force on cranial morphology for Micronycteris microtis and other phyllostomids.

Principal Component (PC) 1 was derived from ten linear measurements from dry skulls of M. microtis (N  =  6) and 29 phyllostomid species. PC1 explained most of the variation in bite force (R2 = −0.247, F1,30  =  10.63, P  =  0.0029). Bite force data for other phyllostomids from Santana & Dumont [21].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.g003

M. microtis also exhibited relatively high performance plasticity in relation to the other insectivorous phyllostomids in the dataset (Figure 4), although this plasticity did not stand out relative to the whole group of phyllostomids measured. The rate of evolution for performance plasticity was not significantly different from the rest of the phyllostomid lineage (t  =  0.371, df  =  14, P  =  0.358).

thumbnail
Figure 4. Behavioral and performance plasticity in phyllostomid bats while feeding on soft and hard prey items (fruits or insects).

Species included for comparison are frugivores: Artibeus jamaicensis, Artibeus phaeotis, Carollia perspicillata, Centurio senex, Platyrrhinus helleri, Sphaeronycteris toxophyllum, Sturnira lilium and Uroderma bilobatum; insectivore: Mimon crenulatum; insectivore with carnivory (animalivory): Tonatia saurophila; omnivores: Carollia brevicauda, Glossophaga soricina, Phylloderma stenops, Phyllostomus discolor; omnivore with carnivory: Phyllostomus hastatus. (R2  =  0.684, F1,14  =  9.3679, P  =  7.738exp-05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028584.g004

Discussion

Within gleaning animalivores, Micronycteris microtis has an unusually broad diet, which not only spans many arthropod taxa, sizes and physical characteristics, but also includes vertebrate prey. Our goal was to investigate whether such a wide dietary breadth could be linked to morphological, behavioral and performance traits of the feeding apparatus. Cranial morphology and bite force appear to have evolved at a rapid rate in M. microtis, resulting in this species having the highest bite force among the species studied after accounting for cranial size and shape. Evolutionary increases in bite force can be achieved through changes in cranial shape that maximize mechanical advantage (i.e. the ratio of force output to muscle force), changes in muscle anatomy that result in higher force production (e.g. increases in mass, reduction of muscle fiber length), or both. At first glance, the skull of M. microtis does not appear to deviate from the generalized morphology of other animal-eating phyllostomids. However, a recent study on a closely related species, M. hirsuta, demonstrated that this bat has a skull that is stronger under feeding loads than two other insectivorous phyllostomids (Lophostoma silvicolum and Tonatia saurophila) [32]. M. hirsuta also has a higher mechanical advantage. Similar characteristics are likely shared by M. microtis, thus further research on its cranial anatomy and biomechanics is essential for a full understanding of the enhanced biting performance of this species.

M. microtis also exhibits behavioral attributes that set it apart from other gleaners. Like other animal-eating bats, M. microtis predominantly uses its molars and premolars to process food items, but it apparently has an increased ability to modify its bite performance behaviorally (i.e. high performance plasticity) when compared to sympatric species. Although further studies are required to test this trend statistically, this is an intriguing finding, as one might expect canalization and lower behavioral plasticity within the highly diverse assemblages to which M. microtis belongs. Elevated performance plasticity, along with an elevated bite force, may be key traits that allow M. microtis to expand its niche space by accessing prey with a wider range of sizes and hardnesses, including vertebrates. This hypothesis is further supported by our finding that sympatric gleaning bats with lower performance plasticity than M. microtis also seem to have narrower diets. For example, Mimon crenulatum feeds mostly on beetles and moths, and Tonatia saurophila on katydids and beetles [11]. It is important to note, however, that we cannot exclude biases regarding the completeness of dietary information until more extensive dietary studies are conducted on these species.

Our evidence based on morphological, performance and behavioral adaptations goes hand-in-hand with preliminary data on the prey detection strategies used by M. microtis [10].A series of behavioral experiments indicate that M. microtis has also evolved a unique sensory strategy to locate prey. This species is able to detect silent and motionless prey with echolocation alone [10], as opposed to using the multisensory strategy employed by other animal-eating bats [33], [34]. Interestingly, the general structure and pattern of echolocation calls of M. microtis does not differ from other similar-sized gleaners and other phyllostomids with different diets [35]. Moreover, M. microtis hunts on the wing, checking leaf by leaf in the forest while hovering up and down the understory vegetation [36]. We conclude that the high feeding performance, behavior and dietary plasticity described here, combined with sensory specialization, makes M. microtis unique among coexisting phyllostomid species and may set it apart from other gleaning bats.

Only 13 of the approximately 1,100 extant species of bats are known to feed on vertebrate prey, including the large (>>10 g) phyllostomid gleaners (Phyllostomus hastatus, Trachops cirrhosus, Tonatia saurophila, Chrotopterus auritus and Vampyrum spectrum) [16], [37], [38]. These carnivorous bats tend to have relatively large body sizes when compared to closely related species and to non-carnivorous bats. Given the small size of M. microtis (body mass: 5–7 g), it was surprising to document the consumption of vertebrate prey in this species. Although there is a strong historical component to diet within phyllostomid lineages [9], [39], [40], until now none of the small Micronycteris species has been reported to consume vertebrate prey. As the dietary data for other small Micronycteris is not as extensive as for M. microtis, we cannot exclude that consumption of small vertebrates might also occur in these bats. Nevertheless, our finding disproves the long-standing assumption that a large body size is a requirement for carnivory in bats, as long as the prey item still fits into the bat’s gape angle and can be successfully processed by its bite force.To date, no cranial characteristics separate carnivorous bats from species that specialize on soft insects [11], [41], [42]. Both groups have elongated faces, thin dentaries, low condyles, and large brain cases [42]. Apparently, marked changes in skull morphology and function are not required to transition from insectivory to carnivory in bats [11]. Our results lend some support to this hypothesis, given that M. microtis used similar prey processing behaviors while feeding on insects and vertebrates. Further investigation on the diets of other gleaning phyllostomids are highly likely to reveal more instances of opportunistic carnivory. Within this context, small species such as M. microtis illustrate the performance and behavioral characteristics that would connect insectivory with carnivory. These findings also illustrate a dietary continuum instead of the traditional separation between insectivory and carnivory in bats, and speaks for the use of the term “animalivorous” when referring to these species.

Our study highlights the importance of documenting diet, feeding performance and plasticity for a better understanding of resource use and partitioning among tropical species. As the threat of extinction increases for tropical bats due to habitat destruction, the attributes that allow of M. microtis to find and process a wide range of prey could also help it tolerate habitat fragmentation and isolation [43], [44]. Indeed, this species appears to be increasing in numbers on isolated islands in the Barro Colorado Nature Monument. Although this could be caused in part by a competitive release from other animalivorous gleaners, it also may be due to the high efficiency of this species in finding food on very small spatial scales and its ability to behaviorally adjust its already high bite performance to various prey types.

Acknowledgments

We thank Larissa Albrecht, Katja Wallmeyer and Caroline Schulze for help during the recording of feeding behaviors. Susanne Krammer helped with compilation, selection and editing of feeding behavior videos. Graham Slater provided assistance during the phylogenetic analyses. This study is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Elisabeth Kalko, who was an extraordinary mentor and friend, and whose kindness, curiosity, and passion for bats inspired us all.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SES EKVK. Performed the experiments: SES IG ERD MBK EKVK. Analyzed the data: SES. Wrote the paper: SES EKVK. Contributed in editing the manuscript: IG ERD MBK.

References

  1. 1. Erwin T (2002) Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Foundations of tropical forest biology: classic papers with commentaries 36: 438.T. Erwin2002Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species.Foundations of tropical forest biology: classic papers with commentaries36438
  2. 2. Gentry A (1988) Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85: 156–159.A. Gentry1988Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A85156159
  3. 3. Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C, da Fonseca G, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.N. MyersR. MittermeierC. MittermeierG. da FonsecaJ. Kent2000Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.Nature403853858
  4. 4. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat 93: 145–159.GE Hutchinson1959Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?Am Nat93145159
  5. 5. Bumrungsri S, Leelapaibul W, Racey P (2007) Resource partitioning in sympatric Cynopterus bats in lowland tropical rain forest, Thailand. Biotropica 39: 241–248.S. BumrungsriW. LeelapaibulP. Racey2007Resource partitioning in sympatric Cynopterus bats in lowland tropical rain forest, Thailand.Biotropica39241248
  6. 6. Schoener T (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.T. Schoener1974Resource partitioning in ecological communities.Science1852739
  7. 7. Wright J (2002) Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence. Oecologia 130: 1–14.J. Wright2002Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence.Oecologia130114
  8. 8. Toft C (1980) Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic species of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia 45: 131–141.C. Toft1980Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic species of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment.Oecologia45131141
  9. 9. Giannini NP, Kalko EKV (2004) Trophic structure in a large assemblage of phyllostomid bats in Panama. Oikos 105: 209–220.NP GianniniEKV Kalko2004Trophic structure in a large assemblage of phyllostomid bats in Panama.Oikos105209220
  10. 10. Geipel I (2007) Prey detection of the Neotropical leaf-nosed bat Micronycteris microtis in Panamá. Goettingen, Germany: Georg August University. I. Geipel2007Prey detection of the Neotropical leaf-nosed bat Micronycteris microtis in Panamá.Goettingen, GermanyGeorg August University
  11. 11. Giannini NP, Kalko EKV (2005) The guild structure of animalivorous leaf-nosed bats of Barro Colorado Island, Panama, revisited. Acta Chiropterol 7: 131–146.NP GianniniEKV Kalko2005The guild structure of animalivorous leaf-nosed bats of Barro Colorado Island, Panama, revisited.Acta Chiropterol7131146
  12. 12. Kalka M, Kalko EKV (2006) Gleaning bats as underestimated predators of herbivorous insects: diet of Micronycteris microtis (Phyllostomidae) in Panama. J Trop Ecol 22: 1–10.M. KalkaEKV Kalko2006Gleaning bats as underestimated predators of herbivorous insects: diet of Micronycteris microtis (Phyllostomidae) in Panama.J Trop Ecol22110
  13. 13. Strait SG (1993) Molar morphology and food texture among small-bodied insectivorous mammals. J Mammal 74: 391–402.SG Strait1993Molar morphology and food texture among small-bodied insectivorous mammals.J Mammal74391402
  14. 14. Evans AR, Sanson GD (2005) Biomechanical properties of insects in relation to insectivory: cuticle thickness as an indicator of insect 'hardness' and 'intractability'. Aust J Zool 53: 9–19.AR EvansGD Sanson2005Biomechanical properties of insects in relation to insectivory: cuticle thickness as an indicator of insect 'hardness' and 'intractability'.Aust J Zool53919
  15. 15. Kalko EKV, Estrada Villegas S, Schmidt M, Wegmann M, Meyer CFJ (2008) Flying high: assessing the use of the aerosphere by bats. Integ Comp Biol 48: 60–73.EKV KalkoS. Estrada VillegasM. SchmidtM. WegmannCFJ Meyer2008Flying high: assessing the use of the aerosphere by bats.Integ Comp Biol486073
  16. 16. Simmons NB (2004) Order Chiroptera. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM, editors. Mammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 2–340.NB Simmons2004Order Chiroptera.DE WilsonDM ReederMammal species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic referenceWashingtonSmithsonian Institution Press2340
  17. 17. Simmons NB, Voss RS (1998) The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: A Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1: Bats. Bulletin of The American Museum of Natural History. 219 p.NB SimmonsRS Voss1998The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: A Neotropical lowland rainforest fauna.Part 1: Bats. Bulletin of The American Museum of Natural History219
  18. 18. Schnitzler HU, Kalko EKV (2001) Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51: 557–569.HU SchnitzlerEKV Kalko2001Echolocation by insect-eating bats.Bioscience51557569
  19. 19. Siemers BM, Schnitzler HU (2004) Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species. Nature 429: 657–661.BM SiemersHU Schnitzler2004Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species.Nature429657661
  20. 20. Aguirre LF, Herrel A, Van Damme R, Matthysen E (2003) The implications of food hardness for diet in bats. Funct Ecol 17: 201–212.LF AguirreA. HerrelR. Van DammeE. Matthysen2003The implications of food hardness for diet in bats.Funct Ecol17201212
  21. 21. Santana SE, Dumont ER (2009) Connecting behaviour and performance: the evolution of biting behaviour and bite performance in bats. J Evol Biol 22: 2131 - 2145: SE SantanaER Dumont2009Connecting behaviour and performance: the evolution of biting behaviour and bite performance in bats.J Evol Biol 22:2131 - 2145
  22. 22. Dumont ER (1999) The effect of food hardness on feeding behaviour in frugivorous bats (Phyllostomidae): an experimental study. J Zool 248: 219–229.ER Dumont1999The effect of food hardness on feeding behaviour in frugivorous bats (Phyllostomidae): an experimental study.J Zool248219229
  23. 23. Herrel A, De Smet A, Aguirre LF, Aerts P (2008) Morphological and mechanical determinants of bite force in bats: do muscles matter? J Exp Biol 211: 86–91.A. HerrelA. De SmetLF AguirreP. Aerts2008Morphological and mechanical determinants of bite force in bats: do muscles matter?J Exp Biol2118691
  24. 24. Santana SE, Dumont ER, Davis JL (2010) Mechanics of bite force production and its relationship to diet in bats. Funct Ecol 24: 776–784.SE SantanaER DumontJL Davis2010Mechanics of bite force production and its relationship to diet in bats.Funct Ecol24776784
  25. 25. Santana SE, Strait S, Dumont ER (2011) The better to eat you with: functional correlates of tooth structure in bats. Funct Ecol. SE SantanaS. StraitER Dumont2011The better to eat you with: functional correlates of tooth structure in bats.Funct EcolDOI:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01832.x. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01832.x.
  26. 26. Herrel A, Spithoven L, Van Damme R, De Vree F (1999) Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Funct Ecol 13: 289–297.A. HerrelL. SpithovenR. Van DammeF. De Vree1999Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses.Funct Ecol13289297
  27. 27. Dumont ER, Herrel A (2003) The effects of gape angle and bite point on bite force in bats. J Exp Biol 206: 2117–2123.ER DumontA. Herrel2003The effects of gape angle and bite point on bite force in bats.J Exp Biol20621172123
  28. 28. Jungers WL, Falsetti AB, Wall CE (1995) Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol 38: 137–161.WL JungersAB FalsettiCE Wall1995Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics.Am J Phys Anthropol38137161
  29. 29. McPeek MA (1995) Testing hypotheses about evolutionary change on single branches of a phylogeny using evolutionary contrasts. Am Nat 145: 686–703.MA McPeek1995Testing hypotheses about evolutionary change on single branches of a phylogeny using evolutionary contrasts.Am Nat145686703
  30. 30. Paradis E, Strimmer K, Claude J, Jobb G, Opgen-Rhein R, et al. (2006) APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution. R package version 1: E. ParadisK. StrimmerJ. ClaudeG. JobbR. Opgen-Rhein2006APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution.R package version1
  31. 31. Harmon L, Weir J, Brock C, Glor R, Challenger W (2008) GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24: 129–131.L. HarmonJ. WeirC. BrockR. GlorW. Challenger2008GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations.Bioinformatics24129131
  32. 32. Santana SE, Dumont ER (2011) Do roost-excavating bats have stronger skulls? Biol J Linn Soc 102: 1–10.SE SantanaER Dumont2011Do roost-excavating bats have stronger skulls?Biol J Linn Soc102110
  33. 33. Kalko EKV, Schnitzler HU (1998) How echolocating bats approach and acquire food. In: Kunz TH, Racey , PA , editors. Bat biology and conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 197–204.EKV KalkoHU Schnitzler1998How echolocating bats approach and acquire food.TH KunzRaceyPABat biology and conservationWashington, DCSmithsonian Institution Press197204
  34. 34. Tuttle MD, Ryan MJ (1981) Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the Neotropics. Science 214: 677.MD TuttleMJ Ryan1981Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the Neotropics.Science214677
  35. 35. Kalko E (2004) Neotropical leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae): "Whispering" bats or candidates for acoustic survey. In: Brigham M, Jones G, Kalko E, editors. Austin: Bat Conservation International. pp. 63–69.E. Kalko2004Neotropical leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae): "Whispering" bats or candidates for acoustic survey.M. BrighamG. JonesE. KalkoAustin: Bat Conservation International6369
  36. 36. van de Sand M (2004) Ökologie und Verhalten einer neotropischen Fledermausart: Aktivität, Raumnutzung und Beutefang von Micronycteris microtis in Panamá. Bonn, Germany: Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn. M. van de Sand2004Ökologie und Verhalten einer neotropischen Fledermausart: Aktivität, Raumnutzung und Beutefang von Micronycteris microtis in Panamá.Bonn, GermanyRheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn
  37. 37. Dondini G, Vergari S (2000) Carnivory in the greater noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus) in Italy. J Zool 251: 233–236.G. DondiniS. Vergari2000Carnivory in the greater noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus) in Italy.J Zool251233236
  38. 38. Norberg U, Fenton M (1988) Carnivorous bats? Biol J Linn Soc 33: 383–394.U. NorbergM. Fenton1988Carnivorous bats?Biol J Linn Soc33383394
  39. 39. Wetterer AL, Rocman MV, Simmons NB (2000) Phylogeny of phyllostomid bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): data from diverse morphological systems, sex chromosomes and restriction sites. Bulletin of The American Museum of Natural History. 200 p.AL WettererMV RocmanNB Simmons2000Phylogeny of phyllostomid bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): data from diverse morphological systems, sex chromosomes and restriction sites.Bulletin of The American Museum of Natural History200
  40. 40. Rojas D, Vale Á, Ferrero V, Navarro L (2011) When did plants become important to leaf-nosed bats? Diversification of feeding habits in the family Phyllostomidae. Mol Ecol. D. RojasÁ. ValeV. FerreroL. Navarro2011When did plants become important to leaf-nosed bats?Diversification of feeding habits in the family Phyllostomidae. Mol EcolDOI:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05082.x. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05082.x.
  41. 41. Freeman PW (1979) Specialized insectivoy: beetle-eating and moth-eating molossid bats. J Mammal 60: 467–479.PW Freeman1979Specialized insectivoy: beetle-eating and moth-eating molossid bats.J Mammal60467479
  42. 42. Freeman PW (1984) Functional cranial analysis of large animalivorous bats (Microchiroptera). Biol J Linn Soc 21: 387–408.PW Freeman1984Functional cranial analysis of large animalivorous bats (Microchiroptera).Biol J Linn Soc21387408
  43. 43. Albrecht L, Meyer C, Kalko E (2007) Differential mobility in two small phyllostomid bats, Artibeus watsoni and Micronycteris microtis, in a fragmented Neotropical landscape. Acta Theriol 52: 141–149.L. AlbrechtC. MeyerE. Kalko2007Differential mobility in two small phyllostomid bats, Artibeus watsoni and Micronycteris microtis, in a fragmented Neotropical landscape.Acta Theriol52141149
  44. 44. Meyer C, Kalko E (2008) Assemblage level responses of phyllostomid bats to tropical forest fragmentation: land bridge islands as a model system. J Biogeogr 35: 1711–1726.C. MeyerE. Kalko2008Assemblage level responses of phyllostomid bats to tropical forest fragmentation: land bridge islands as a model system.J Biogeogr3517111726