Fig 1.
Division of the wing and the tail membrane applied in the present study.
I–tail membrane, uropatagium, II–wing membrane, plagiopatagium, III–finger membrane, dactylopatagium, IV–propatagium.
Fig 2.
Damages to the wing membranes.
1 (a, b)–tears in the wing–disruption of the wing membrane running from its edge; 2 –holes in wings–holes with a diameter larger than 1 mm, damage to the wing membrane; 3 (a, b, c)–losses in the wing and tail membrane–losses of the edge fragments of the wing membrane, including scarrs that influence the shape of the wing and the lost fragments of uropatagium; 4 –loss of a finger membrane–damage to the dactylopatagium, and loss or deformation of the end part of the wing. 5 (a, b)–bone fractures–visible traces of healed injuries or bone fractures, such as bone thickening, bone fusion, and fractures with the displacement of metacarpal and phalanges bones.
Fig 3.
Type of habitats occupied by bats, the corresponding foraging mode (A), and foraging habitat (B). The abbreviation name: Rhip–Rhinolophus hipposideros, Mdau–Myotis daubentonii, Mnat–Myotis nattereri, Mmyo–Myotis myotis, Bbar–Barbastella barbastellus, Paur–Plecotus auritus.
Fig 4.
Proportion of damage types in all the bats studied.
The upper axis shows the percentage of bats from each wing damage categories among all wing damages (N = 117). The lower axis shows the percentage of bats from each wing damage categories among all observed individuals (N = 3,525).
Table 1.
Results of the logistic regression for species, foraging mode, habitat type and foraging habitat and number of wings damages.
Table 2.
Proportion of damage in various parts of the wings and the tail membrane in the studied bat species (I–tail membrane, uropatagium, II–wing membrane, plagiopatagium, III–finger membrane, dactylopatagium, IV–propatagium).
Table 3.
Results of the logistic regression for foraging mode and location of the damage on wings.
Fig 5.
Frequencies of each type of membrane damage within a species.
Number of specimens = 105, number of damages = 117.
Fig 6.
Occurrence of the damage in bat wings according on foraging mode (A), habitat type (B), foraging habitats (C).
Fig 7.
A–D greater mouse–eared bat, E–H Daubenton’s bat, I–L Natterer’s bat, M–P western barbastelle, Q–T lesser horseshoe bat. Tears in the wing–L, K. Holes in wings–M, N, P, S. Losses in the wing and tail membrane–A, B, D, I, R, Q, H. Loss of a finger membrane–C, E, F, J. Bone fractures—O, T, G.