http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5791-5338
Figures
Abstract
Animals are faced with a range of ecological constraints that shape their behavioural decisions. Habitat features that affect resource abundance will also have an impact, especially as regards spatial distribution, which will in turn affect associations between the animals. Here we utilised a network approach, using spatial and genetic data, to describe patterns in use of space (foraging sites) by free-ranging Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) at the Dakhla Oasis in Egypt. We observed a decrease in home range size during spring, when food availability was lowest, which was reflected by differences in space sharing networks. Our data showed that when food was abundant, space sharing networks were less connected and more related individuals shared more foraging sites. In comparison, when food was scarce the bats had few possibilities to decide where and with whom to forage. Overall, both networks had high mean degree, suggesting communal knowledge of predictable food distribution.
Citation: Bachorec E, Horáček I, Hulva P, Konečný A, Lučan RK, Jedlička P, et al. (2020) Spatial networks differ when food supply changes: Foraging strategy of Egyptian fruit bats. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0229110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229110
Editor: Christian Vincenot, Kyoto University, JAPAN
Received: September 2, 2019; Accepted: January 29, 2020; Published: February 25, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Bachorec et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data are available on Figshare link: https://figshare.com/articles/_/11316560 doi: dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11316560.
Funding: This work received support from: Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (# IAA601110905); Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (# 206/09/0888); Charles University Research Centre program (# 204069); Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic (# MUNI/A/1078/2017); Research aims of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (# RVO 68081766). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Behaviour is expressed as a response to intrinsic and extrinsic factors that include an individual’s physical and social environment, the latter comprising non-random and heterogeneous social interactions [1]. This response generally occurs in two major forms, i.e. innate behaviour and learned behaviour. Instinct-driven behaviour (i.e. innate behaviour) is genetically incorporated as soft wired “tendencies” that are vertically inherited from parents to offspring. These can be moulded by lifetime experiences (i.e. learned behaviour), allowing an individual to acquire knowledge about the environment and adapt to it [2–5]. Learned behaviour, the product of an animal’s contact with the environment, is acquired by either individual or social learning and can spread both vertically and horizontally among individuals [6]. A key challenge in understanding such differences in behaviour is to disentangle the contribution of individual experience and social learning (mediated through cultural transmission of knowledge) from innate programs (inherited genetically) [7].
Group-living animals, especially those that rely on seasonally fluctuating resources (e.g. bats), benefit from an ability to utilise social information [8]. In this way, social interactions facilitate information gathering and learning from another individual’s behaviour or its products [9, 10]. In the context of foraging, social information is used by naive individuals to locate resources and is acquired by observing the behaviour of successful foragers [11], whereby inadvertent cues produced by feeding conspecifics or heterospecifics may attract individuals to the resource. Such local enhancement has been observed in a range of taxa such as crustaceans (Paguroidea spp., [11]), fish (Poecilia reticulata, [12]) or mammals (Sus scrofa, [13]; Heterocephalus glaber, [14]; Phyllostomus hastatus, [15]). By observing the behaviour of conspecifics, individuals may also acquire information on roosting sites, the edibility of new food sources or new skills [16].
Interaction between individuals requires relatively close spatial proximity, with the social environment mainly determined by their movement decisions [17–20]. Habitat features, such as resources, play a fundamental role in the spatial distribution of group members, shaping inter-individual proximity and potential social interactions [18, 21–24]. In social mammals, group members tend to live together with relatives, and thus have more opportunities for social learning from related individuals [25]. In this way, genetic relatedness between individuals may also play a role in the socio-spatial organisation of populations [26]. Kin-biased associations can result in numerous fitness benefits including increased foraging efficiency [27–30]. In two bat species, i.e. Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii) [31, 32] and the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) [33], related individuals learn where and what to eat, share space (e.g. foraging sites) and/or forage socially. A recent study, however, found that while frugivorous bat species (i.e. Rousettus) have not been observed searching for food in groups, yet groups have been observed at foraging sites interacting with each other [34].
Here, we report on variation and seasonal changes in spatial activity and space sharing by Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus, [35]), a medium-sized (100–200 g) pteropodid bat with a large polytopic distributional range encompassing several climatic zones, including the tropics, subtropics and temperate regions such as the eastern Mediterranean [36]. Egyptian fruit bats roost in caves or artificial structures (e.g. abandoned buildings, tombs and mines) and form colonies ranging from just a few individuals to several thousands. Within the roost, bats maintain close body contact with other individuals and interact with each other [37]. Proportion of pregnant females occurs in two peaks, in late spring and in autumn. Reproductive activity of males is the highest during autumn and winter months (more details in [38]). The diet of these fruit bats consists mainly of fruit, such as figs (Ficus carica, F. microcarpa, F. religiosa, F. rubiginosa), dates (Phoenix dactylifera), loquats (Eriobotrya japonica) and mulberries (Morus nigra) [39, 40]. Strong seasonality in the Eastern Mediterranean climate results in an uneven distribution of food sources, though, conditions are even harsher in desert environments such as the Dakhla oasis [41, 42]. Owing to a lack of rainfall and limited groundwater resources, summer is the only season when food is plentiful, the rest of the year being characterized by food scarcity. This is further exacerbated by the harvesting of cultivated crops, especially dates. Under such harsh conditions, a principal challenge in understanding the behaviour of fruit bats is identifying exactly how space-use and inter-individual associations translate into foraging performance.
This paper explores a possible link between genetic relatedness, space sharing and the role of food availability in shaping associations among Egyptian fruit bats. The social network approach [43, 44], which has previously been applied to bats, provides a suitable method for studying these processes [45–49]. Because grouping with kin is believed to reduce some foraging costs and having more relatives could result in easier access to information about foraging sites [33, 50, 51], we predicted a positive association between genetic relatedness and foraging site sharing. As climatic conditions and harvesting activities affect food distribution, we also hypothesised that in spring, when food offer is scarce, animals will share sites where food is still available and therefore the network will be more interconnected. On the other hand, when food offer is rich animals will be more spatially distributed and the group cohesion will decrease.
Materials and methods
Study site
All fieldwork took place at the Dakhla oasis in central Egypt (25.6949453N, 28.8831228E) and covered three distinct seasons: winter (November—December 2010), spring (March—April 2011) and summer (July—August 2011). The surrounding environment is typified by houses with gardens, date palm plantations and patches of fig and mango trees. As with much of Egypt, the Dakhla oasis has a hot-desert climate [52], with a mean winter (January) and spring (April) temperature of 19°C, a mean summer (August) temperature of 23°C and mean rainfall of 2 mm in winter, 1 mm in spring and 0 mm in summer. The Egyptian fruit bat population at the Dakhla oasis consists of approximately 2500 individuals in 25 colonies [38]. The colony occupying the Al Qasr old town consisted approximately of 1000 individuals which used 21 different roosts.
Sampling and radiotracking
Fruit bats were mist netted at foraging sites, whereupon they were weighed and sexed, and a 3.0 mm circular piece of tissue was taken from the wing membrane of for genetic analysis, using a sterile biopsy punch (Miltex, Inc., USA). Age estimation was based on the forearm growth curve published by Mutere [53], dentition, testes size and position in males and the state of nipples in females [38, 40]. The fruit bats (67 females and 50 males) were equipped with a 5.4 g (4.1 ± 0.6% of bats body mass, cf. [54]) VHF transmitter designed at the Institute of Scientific Instruments of the Czech Academy of Sciences (ISI, Brno, Czech Republic), which was attached to the interscapular region using physiologically safe glue (ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, Universum, Czech Republic) after trimming a patch of fur. The VHF transmitters were programmed to produce one pulse per 1.7 sec over an 18-day period (though they tended to fall off earlier) and had a range of approximately 2000 m. After release, the bats were continuously tracked using a four-station setup of the BAARA automatic radio tracking system (Biological AutomAted RAdiotelemetry system; for details see [55]), which took bearings every 2–10 minutes from all tagged bats simultaneously from sunset to sunrise. Bats were also located at foraging sites and day roosts manually, using two handheld two-element HB9CV and one six-element Yagi antennas (ISI, Brno, Czech Republic). The BAARA system utilises custom-made software (BAARAview version 1.7, Brno, Czech Republic) that converts position data (signal azimuth, strength and station position) directly to geographical coordinates.
Two types of data were used for spatial analysis, i) exact positions of a bat when spotted at close distance by a researcher [40] and, ii) positions estimated from manual bearings and using the four station BAARA system. When multiple stations took simultaneous bearings of a transmitter, its precise location was calculated by triangulation. Once converted to geographical coordinates, position data were imported into GIS software (ArcMap, [56]). Home ranges for 111 bats were estimated directly in BAARAView using standard minimum convex polygons (MCP; 95%) and core areas (CA; 50%) [57, 58]. To estimate radio tracking effort, we assessed the number of newly visited foraging sites for each bat-night. The probability of visiting a new site during a night was calculated as mean number of newly visited sites by all bats divided by the number of consecutive night (probability < 7% on the fifth bat-night; S1A and S1B Fig).
Food availability
To estimate food availability at each foraging site, a 100 x 100 m area around the site was mapped and the number of date palms (P. dactylifera), and banana (Musa sp.), fig (Ficus sp.), mango (Mangifera sp.), citrus (Citrus sp.), jujube (Ziziphus jujube) and guava (Psidium guajava) trees with ripe fruit counted [40]. The assessment of food availability and fruit ripeness was continuous (during all days throughout radiotracking survey). Position data were continually visualized, so we had immediate information of the space-time distribution of all radio tracked bats. Whenever a new foraging site was found, the number of trees and fruit ripeness was evaluated. The foraging sites were then delineated using the GIS software. Because food availability was correlated with weather changes but not with reproductive cycle, data from two seasons are comparable.
Genotyping and relatedness
Genomic DNA was extracted from the biopsy tissue of 63 individuals (38 females and 25 males, 31 from winter, 32 from spring) using the DNeasy® Blood & Tissue kit (QIAGEN Group) following the manufacturers protocol. Extraction of DNA from samples collected during summer was not possible due to sample degradation. Thirteen microsatellite loci were used for genotyping with fragments amplified via polymerase chain reaction under the same conditions as Hulva et al. [59] using fluorescently marked 66HDZ (80, 82, 105, 106, 110, 117, 304, 334, 341, 407, 413) and M3 (6, 121) primers [60, 61]. Fragment analysis was performed according to the protocol of Hulva et al. [59] on an ABI sequencer (Applied Biosystems), with allele sizes scored in GeneMapper (Applied Biosystems). Maximum likelihood estimation of pairwise relatedness (see [62]) was calculated in MLrelate [63].
Network analysis
Undirected weighted networks were constructed for 63 fruit bats (31 from winter, 32 from spring) based on relatedness, with weight of the edges representative of the relatedness coefficient between individuals. For the same fruit bats, pair-wise foraging site sharing was quantified using GIS software, with a foraging site considered as shared when the positions of two fruit bats overlapped on the site during the same night. As it was not possible to observe interactions in the field, spatial co-occurrence was used as a proxy for foraging site sharing to construct networks [64]. Space sharing networks were constructed for both winter and spring, with the weight of the edges representing the percentage of shared foraging sites between two individuals. Filtered space sharing networks were also constructed using related pairs only to account for any disproportion in the number of related and unrelated pairs. Filtering social networks in this way can elucidate further hypotheses explaining network structure and may also highlight patterns that were predicted a priori [65]. In order to assess the potential role of co-roosting in social foraging, a co-roosting matrix was also constructed for 58 fruit bats. Exact positions of day roosts for the remaining 5 fruit bats were missing. Roost sharing between pairs of bats was defined as the number of days spent in the same roost. Network density (ρ) and node-based measures such as normalized degree (k), clustering coefficient (C) and weighted degree (s) were calculated from the space sharing networks. The network density is the number of edges in a network divided by the total possible edges. Density value of 1 mean that all fruit bats interacted with each other. The normalized degree (afterwards only degree) represents the number of edges connected to the node divided by all possible connections and captures individual gregariousness in terms of the number of interaction partners. The clustering coefficient is an unweighted measure of how well-connected the nodes are to their immediate neighbours [44]. Knowledge on clustering coefficient contributes to our understanding of how susceptible a population is to information flow [65]. The weighted degree combines the degree with the total weight of its edges, and it tells us about the sum of foraging sites shared by others. All networks were constructed and analysed in Gephi version 0.9.2 [66] and UCINET [67].
Statistical analysis
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in MCP, CA, food availability, number of foraging sites visited, with season (winter, spring, summer) as the main factor. Bonferroni post-hoc tests were then used to compare the effects. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to compare pair-wise relatedness coefficient distribution between seasons (winter, spring). The multiple regression quadratic assignment procedure (MR-QAP) with double dekker semi-partialling was used to assess whether the space sharing network is predicted by relatedness or by co-roosting [68]. This method, an extension of the Mantel test, enables the dependent matrix to be regressed against one or more independent matrices and is generally used to model social relation (i.e. space sharing) using values of other relations such as genetic relatedness [67, 69]. Seasonal differences in degree, weighted degree and clustering coefficient were tested using T-test. Linear regression was used to test whether the number of sites visited predicted the degree. To generate appropriate significance levels according to our data structure, P values were generated using 10000 node-based permutations in all tests.
Ethical statement
This study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations in the guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists [70], which has been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague. Capture and sampling of R. aegyptiacus were conducted under the permission granted by the Nature Conservation Egypt (# 22408921, 546223). Great care was taken during capturing, handling and sampling of bats to minimize stress and disturbance. The wound after this biopsy from wing membrane was fully closed and healed after 14 days [71]. Tagging of bats had no impact on movement of animals, or any other costs. Transmitters were programmed to transmit over 18 day but tended to fell of spontaneously earlier, leaving the skin intact.
Results
Of the 117 bats radio tracked, 37 were followed during winter, 40 during spring and 40 during summer. In total, we obtained data from 927 bat-nights (8.35 ± 2.98 SD nights/bat), and 87609 locations (online dataset in Figshare).
Seasonal differences in spatial activity characterised by home-range and core area size reflected food availability. The mean distance from the roost to the foraging site was 1485.2 ± 821.0 m. Season had significant effect on the size of MCP and CA. The lowest MCP was observed during spring (Kruskal-Wallis: H2,111 = 57.53; p<0.001; Fig 1A) and the CA was low during both winter and spring (H2,111 = 76.98; p<0.001; Fig 1B) compared to the summer. Food availability was the lowest in spring (H2,42 = 25.043; p < 0.001) when food was restricted to a single resource (dates). In comparison, up to seven alternative food resources were available in winter and summer, i.e. dates, mango, citrus, figs, jujube, guava and banana.
Home range (a) and core area (b) during three seasons. Boxes represent median ± quartiles (25%-75%), whiskers represent range; significance—ab, p < 0.001.
All thirteen microsatellite loci were polymorphic (mean number of alleles per locus = 6.15, ranging from 3 to 10). No difference was observed in the frequency distribution of pair-wise relatedness coefficients between seasons (Fig 2).
Black columns represent winter, grey columns spring, the number above the columns is the count of observed values.
There was a significant correlation between the genetic and filtered space sharing network in winter (MR-QAP: r = 0.326; p < 0.001), but not in spring (r = -0.07628; p = 0.175). No link was found between the space sharing networks and co-roosting in winter (r = 0.14; p = 0.131), nor spring (r = 0.066; p = 0.290). Both, winter and spring space sharing networks (Fig 3A and 3B) had a high density (winter ρ = 0.867; spring ρ = 0.988).
a) winter (n = 31), b) spring (n = 32); blue circles–females, yellow circles–males. Node size depends on the number of sites visited by an individual.
Season had a significant effect on both the degree (kwinter = 0.498; kspring = 0.784; t = -8.885; p < 0.001; Fig 4) and the clustering coefficient (Cwinter = 0.915; Cspring = 0.989; t = -9.377; p < 0.001; Fig 4). The weighted degree also differed significantly between seasons (swinter = 14.967; sspring = 24.314; t = -9,591; p < 0.001). The number of sites visited by an individual proved to be a predictor of its degree (adj. r2 = 0.301; F1,61 = 27.742; p < 0.001).
Boxes (grey–degree, clear–clustering coefficient) represent mean ± standard error; whiskers represent standard deviation; significance—ab,cd p < 0.001.
Discussion
Our radio tracking data indicated profound seasonal differences in both food availability and Egyptian fruit bat spatial activity at the Dakhla oasis. We assume that larger MCPs during periods with high food availability reflect the presence of many small patches with ripe fruit scattered over the oasis. This may force the bats to switch between sites frequently and, consequently, forage over an extended area. Alternatively, fruit bats are not constrained by a single choice, thus they actively select different food sources. From the end of summer until spring, the bats relied mainly on harvestable fruit grown for export; indeed, frequent use of human-modified areas by Egyptian fruit bats has been previously reported in Mediterranean and desert environments [72]. During harvesting season, bats come to contact with people more often, which can also force them to move between patches to avoid conflict. At the Dakhla oasis, however, there were also marginal areas and abandoned palm plantations where fruit was never harvested, and some of the bats may have been foraging at these sites, resulting in large MCP. In spring, conditions became relatively harsh as fruit had either been harvested or new fruit had not yet ripened sufficiently. We expected home range size to increase when food became scarce; however, we observed the opposite trend. The small MCP and CA sizes observed during times of poor food availability may have been caused by i) few suitable foraging sites being situated relatively close to each other, and ii) the high costs of foraging over longer distances under harsh conditions at a time when females are lactating and have high energy demands [38]. The relationships observed in our study were inconsistent with the well-established negative relationship between home range size and local food availability previously noted for a wide variety of other species [73–75].
Our data revealed a significant correlation between the kinship and the filtered space sharing network in winter, but not in spring. This could have resulted from differences in food distribution over the two seasons, with food being scattered all over the oasis in winter but reduced to a few foraging sites in the eastern part of the oasis in spring. Therefore, in spring, all animals foraged together and shared sites where food was still available, while in winter, the bats had the opportunity to select a food source and we propose this selection to be partially kin-biased. The positive link between relatedness and foraging during winter may also reflect reproductive cycle. In such cases, foraging with kin may be beneficial in relation to the costs of finding a good site and ease of access to information [33, 50, 51]. Spatial association patterns may also depend strongly on roosting biology [31, 50] and roost-based exchange of information about foraging sites which has been previously reported in bats by Wilkinson [76] and Kerth and Reckardt [77]. However, in our study, co-roosting was shown to have no effect on foraging space sharing similarly as shown in Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii, [31]).
Both, winter and spring space sharing networks had relatively high connectivity; however, the degree and the clustering coefficient was significantly higher in spring. Our results also showed a significantly higher weighed degree in spring, suggesting that, in season with scarce food offer, fruit bats not only interact with more individuals, but also share higher proportion of sites with each other. Individuals laying further from the network centre visited fewer foraging sites and had lower degree, meaning they were less gregarious. In each case, the patterns of space use observed are likely to be related to the abundance and spatial distribution of resources, i.e. food [78]. As the food sources went scarce, fruit bats tended to share few small sites where fruit was still available, resulting in group cohesion and more connected network. Overall, the high connectivity of space sharing networks may be explained also by communal knowledge about foraging sites.
Although we have no evidence of information flow, we might expect information spread to follow the pattern of space sharing [79, 80]. We assumed, that individuals that share a foraging site were more likely to exchange information [81]. Transmission of information tends to be more rapid and easier in dense networks where each node has high degree [65, 82]. An example provided by the innovative foraging techniques observed in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata), where it is reasonable to assume that degree in such innovators determines how rapidly the innovation will spread [65, 83]. Information spread is also encouraged by a high mean clustering coefficient [84]; indeed, in a previous study on Spix’s disk-winged bat (Thyroptera tricolor), Chaverri [45] reported a higher social network clustering coefficient (C ≥ 0.86) than that reported for other mammals [85–90], suggesting that many social networks may be less interconnected than those of bats.
Fruit bats that visited more foraging sites tended to have a higher degree, which would appear logical, as more explorative individuals have more chances to associate with other individuals [91]. In this way, we propose that fruit bats with less knowledge would benefit from associating with such individuals, as it would help them acquire information about new foraging sites e.g. via local enhancement [92] or producer–scrounger interactions [93]. However, as our data from few GPS-tagged fruit bats indicate, following behaviour cannot be excluded either (Bachorec et al. in prep.).
Though there are numerous studies reporting non-kin foraging associations in bats (e.g. in Pallas’s mastiff bat (Molossus molossus) [94]; the greater mouse-tailed bat (Rhinopoma microphyllum) [95]; and the greater spear-nosed bat (Phyllostomus hastatus) [15], our findings show that Egyptian fruit bats choose to forage with more related individuals but only during periods with plentiful food sources.
In this study, we demonstrated that seasonal changes in food availability have a marked effect on fruit bat foraging behaviour. When fruit was scarce (spring), whether due to seasonality or harvesting, spatial analysis showed a decrease in both MCP and CA, suggesting a lack of food patches. Seasonal differences in food distribution also had an impact on the connectivity of space sharing networks, with abundant food sources in winter leading to a decrease in network connectivity and kin-biased site sharing. On the other hand, fewer sources in spring led to group cohesion and un-biased site sharing. Therefore, in harsh conditions, individuals would benefit from following the group decisions, while in good conditions, individuals may rely on foraging decisions of relatives. Overall, coherent spatial distribution of fruit bats seems to be beneficial in agricultural areas with predictable harvesting periods and seasonal fluctuations in food availability.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Radiotracking effort.
a) new foraging sites visited per night; b) probability of visiting a new site.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229110.s001
(PDF)
S2 Fig. Genetic networks.
a) winter; b) spring. Males are depicted by triangles, females by squares. Node size depends on the degree of an individual.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229110.s002
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank Martin Šálek, Marina Kipson, Magdalena Lučanová, and Michal Porteš for their assistance in the field. We would also like to thank Jiří Mareček for his efforts in the development of the receivers and Biotag transmitters and Michal Prokeš and Martin Čížek for BAARAview. We are very grateful to Kevin Roche for linguistic comments on the manuscript. We would like to express especial thanks to Nature Conservation Egypt for providing the permits for radio tracking the fruit bats.
References
- 1.
Krause J, Ruxton GD, Ruxton GD. Living in groups. Oxford University Press, 2002.
- 2.
Ewer RF. Ethology of Mammals. Springer, London, UK; 1967.
- 3.
Dickens WT, Cohen JL. Instinct and choice: A framework for analysis. In: Coll CG, Mahwah NJ (eds) Nature and Nurture: The Complex Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior and Development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA; 2003.
- 4.
Buss D. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 3rd ed, Boston, MA, USA; 2008.
- 5. Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce MS. Learning from the mistakes of others: How female elk (Cervus elaphus) adjust behaviour with age to avoid hunters. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(6):e0178082. pmid:28614406
- 6. Gould JL, Marler P. Learning by instinct. Sci Am. 1987; 256(1):74–85.
- 7. Mueller T, O’Hara RBO, Converse SJ, Urbanek RP, Fagan WF. Social learning of migratory performance. Science. 2013; 341:999–1002. pmid:23990559
- 8. Wright GS, Wilkinson GS, Moss CF. Social learning of a novel foraging task by big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Anim Behav. 2011; 82(5):1075–1083. pmid:22328786
- 9. Bonnie KE, Earley RL. Expanding the scope for social information use. Anim Behav. 2007; 74:171–181.
- 10.
Hoppitt W, Laland KN. Social learning: an introduction to mechanisms, methods and models. Princeton University Press, 2013.
- 11. Laidre ME. How rugged individualists enable one another to find food and shelter: field experiments with tropical hermit crabs. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010; 277(1686):1361–1369.
- 12. Reader SM, Kendal JR, Laland KN. Social learning of foraging sites and escape routes in the Trinidadian guppies. Anim Behav. 2003; 66:729–739.
- 13. Nicol CJ, Pope SJ. Social learning in sibling pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1994; 40,31–43.
- 14. Judd TM, Sherman PW. Naked mole-rats recruit colonymates to food sources. Anim Behav. 1996; 52,957–969.
- 15. Wilkinson GS, Boughman JW. Social calls coordinate foraging in greater spear-nosed bats. Anim Behav. 1998; 55:337–350. pmid:9480702
- 16. Galef BG, Laland KN. Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience. 2005; 55:489–499.
- 17. Farine DR. Proximity as a proxy for interactions: issues of scale in social network analysis. Anim Behav. 2015; 104:1–5.
- 18. Emlen ST, Oring LW. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 1977; 197:215–223. pmid:327542
- 19. Farine DR, Strandburg-Peshkin A, Berger-Wolf T, Ziebart B, Brugere I, Li J, Crofoot MC. Both nearest neighbours and long-term affiliates predict individual locations during collective movement in wild baboons. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:27704. pmid:27292778
- 20. Bonnell TR, Clarke PM, Henzi SP, Barrett L. Individual-level movement bias leads to the formation of higher-order social structure in a mobile group of baboons. Roy Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4:170148.
- 21. Getz LL. Home ranges, territoriality, and movement of the meadow vole. J Mammal. 1961; 42:24–36.
- 22. Brown JL, Orians GH. Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1970; 1:239–262
- 23. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH. Primate ecology and social organization. J Zool. 1977; 183:1–39
- 24. Mourier J, Vercelloni J, Planes S. Evidence of social communities in a spatially structured network of a free-ranging shark species. Anim Behav. 2012; 83:389–401.
- 25. Laland KN. Social learning strategies. Anim Learn Behav. 2004; 32(1):4–14.
- 26. Bartolommei P, Gasperini S, Manzo E, Natali C, Ciofi C, Cozzolino R. Genetic relatedness affects socio-spatial organization in a solitary carnivore, the European pine marten. Hystrix. 2016; 27(2).
- 27. Janson CH. Aggressive competition and individual food consumption in wild brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1985; 18:125–138.
- 28. van Noordwijk MA, van Schaik CP. The effects of dominance rank and group size on female lifetime reproductive success in wild long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis. Primates. 1999; 40:109–134.
- 29. Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308:648–652. pmid:15860617
- 30. Silk JB, Beehner JC, Berman TJ, Crockford C, Engh AL, Moscovice LR, et al. Strong and consistent social bonds enhance the longevity of female baboons. Curr Biol. 2010; 20:1359–1361. pmid:20598541
- 31. Kerth G, Wagner M, König B. Roosting together, foraging apart: information transfer about food is unlikely to explain sociality in female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2001; 50:283–291.
- 32. Melber M, Fleischmann D, Kerth G. Female Bechstein’s bats share foraging sites with maternal kin but do not forage together with them–results from a long‐term study. Ethology. 2013; 119(9):793–801.
- 33. Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Ransome RD, Barratt EM. Relatedness structure and kin-biased foraging in the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2002; 51(6):510–518.
- 34. Egert-Berg K, Hurme ER, Greif S, Goldstein A, Harten L, Herrera MLG, et al. Resource Ephemerality Drives Social Foraging in Bats. Curr Biol. 2018; 28(22):3667–3673. pmid:30393034
- 35. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire E. Description des roussettes et des c’ephalotes, deux nouveau genres de la famille des chauves-souris. Annales du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle. 1810; 15:86–108.
- 36. Benda P, Abi-Said M, Bartonička T, Bilgin R, Faizolahi K, Lučan RK, et al. Rousettus aegyptiacus (Pteropodidae) in the Palaearctic: list of records and revision of the distribution range. Vespertilio. 2011; 15(1):3–36.
- 37. Kwiecinski GG, Griffiths TA. Rousettus egyptiacus. Mammalian Species. 1999; (611):1–9.
- 38. Lučan RK, Bartonička T, Benda P, Bilgin R, Jedlička P, Nicolaou H, et al. Reproductive seasonality of the Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) at the northern limits of its distribution. J Mammal. 2014; 95(5):1036–1042.
- 39. Korine C, Izhaki I, Arad Z. Is the Egyptian fruit bat Rousettus aegyptiacus a pest in Israel? An analysis of the bat’s diet and implications for its conservation. Biol Conserv. 1999; 88: 301–306.
- 40. Lučan RK, Bartonička T, Jedlička P, Řeřucha Š, Šálek M, Čížek M, et al. Spatial activity and feeding ecology of the endangered northern population of the Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus). J Mammal. 2016; 97(3):815–822.
- 41. Herrera MLG, Korine C, Fleming TH, Arad Z. Dietary implications of intrapopulation variation in nitrogen isotope composition of an old-world fruit bat. J Mammal. 2008; 89(5):1184–1190.
- 42. Ismael H. Evaluation of Present-Day Climate-Induced Desertification in El-Dakhla Oasis, Western Desert Of Egypt, Based On Integration Of MEDALUS Method, GIS And RS Techniques. Present Environment and Sustainable Development. 2015; 9(2):47–72.
- 43.
Whitehead H. Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. University of Chicago Press, 2008.
- 44. Farine DR, Whitehead H. Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J Anim Ecol. 2015; 84(5):1144–1163. pmid:26172345
- 45. Chaverri G. Comparative social network analysis in a leaf-roosting bat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010; 64(10):1619–1630.
- 46. Patriquin KJ, Leonard ML, Broders HG, Garroway CJ. Do social networks of female northern long-eared bats vary with reproductive period and age? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010; 64(6):899–913.
- 47. Kerth G, Perony N, Schweitzer F. Bats are able to maintain long-term social relationships despite the high fission–fusion dynamics of their groups. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011; 278(1719):2761–2767.
- 48. Johnson JS, Kropczynski JN, Lacki MJ. Social network analysis and the study of sociality in bats. Acta Chiropt. 2013; 15(1):1–17.
- 49. Wilkinson GS, Carter G, Bohn KM, Caspers B, Chaverri G, Farine D, et al. Kinship, association, and social complexity in bats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019; 73(1):7.
- 50. Ward P, Zahavi A. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as ‘‘information-centres” for food-finding. Ibis (Lond. 1859). 1973; 115:517–534.
- 51. Frank SA. Perspective: repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution. 2003; 57:693–705. pmid:12778541
- 52. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. “Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification”. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2007; 11: 1633–1644.
- 53. Mutere FA. The breeding biology of Rousettus aegyptiacus living at 0°22'S. Acta Trop. 1968; 25:97–108. pmid:4386699
- 54.
Kunz TH, Parsons S. Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (No. Sirsi) i9780801891472), 2009.
- 55. Řeřucha Š, Bartonička T, Jedlička P, Čížek M, Hlouša O, Lučan R, et al. The BAARA (Biological AutomAted RAdiotracking) system: A new approach in ecological field studies. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(2):e0116785. pmid:25714910
- 56.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS Release 10.6. Redlands, CA; 2018.
- 57. Worthon BJ. Kernel methods for estimating the utilisation distribution in home range studies. Ecology. 1989; 70:164–168.
- 58. Kauhala K, Tiilikainen T. Radio location error and the estimates of home-range size, movements, and habitat use: a simple field test. Ann Zool Fennici, 2002; 39:317–324.
- 59. Hulva P, Marešová T, Dundarova H, Bilgin R, Benda P, Bartonička T, et al. Environmental margin and island evolution in Middle Eastern populations of the Egyptian fruit bat. Mol Ecol. 2012; 21(24):6104–6116. pmid:23094994
- 60. Hua PY, Chen JP, Sun M, Liang B, Zhang SY, Wu DH. Characterization of microsatellite loci in fulvous fruit bat Rousettus leschenaulti. Mol Ecol Notes. 2006; 6:939–941.
- 61. Andrianaivoarivelo AR, Shore GD, McGuire SM, Jenkins RK, Ramilijaona O, Louis EE, et al. Characterization of 22 microsatellite marker loci in the Madagascar rousette (Rousettus madagascariensis). Conserv Genet. 2008; 10:1025–1028.
- 62. Blouin MS. DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003; 18(10):503–511.
- 63. Kalinowski ST, Wagner AP, Taper ML. ML-Relate: a computer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol Ecol Notes. 2006; 6:576–579.
- 64. Whitehead H, Dufault S. Techniques for analyzing vertebrate social structure using identified individuals: review and recommendations. Adv Stud Behav. 1999; 28:33–74.
- 65.
Croft DP, James R, Krause J. Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 2008.
- 66. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Icwsm. 2009; 8(2009):361–362.
- 67.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. 2002; Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
- 68. Dekker D, Krackhardt D, Snijders TA. Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika. 2007; 72(4):563–581. pmid:20084106
- 69. Hirsch BT, Prange S, Hauver SA, Gehrt SD. Genetic relatedness does not predict racoon social network structure. Anim Behav. 2013; 85(2):463–470.
- 70. Sikes RS, Gannon WL, Animal Care and Use Committee 1 of the American Society of Mammalogists Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal. 2011; 92(1):235–253.
- 71. Greville LJ, Ceballos-Vasquez A, Valdizón-Rodríguez R, Caldwell JR, Faure PA. Wound healing in wing membranes of the Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). J Mammal. 2018; 99(4), 974–982.
- 72. Centeno-Cuadros A, Hulva P, Romportl D, Santoro S, Stříbná T, Shohami D, et al. Habitat use, but not gene flow, is influenced by human activities in two ecotypes of Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Mol Ecol. 2017; 26:6224–6237. pmid:28950408
- 73. Boutin S. Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool. 1990; 68:203–220.
- 74. Adams ES (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:277–303.
- 75. Emsens WJ, Suselbeek L, Hirsch BT, Kays R, Winkelhagen AJS, Jansen PA. Effects of food availability on space and refuge use by a neotropical scatterhoarding rodent. Biotropica. 2013; 45:88–93.
- 76. Wilkinson GS. Information transfer at evening bat colonies. Anim Behav. 1992; 44:501–518.
- 77. Kerth G, Reckardt K. Information transfer about roosts in female Bechstein’s bats: an experimental field study. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003; 270(1514):511–515.
- 78. He P, Maldonado-Chaparro AA, Farine DR. The role of habitat configuration in shaping social structure: a gap in studies of animal social complexity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019; 73(1):9.
- 79. Boogert NJ, Reader SM, Hoppitt W, Laland KN. The origin and spread of innovations in starlings. Anim Behav. 2008; 75:1509–1518.
- 80. Morrell LJ, Croft DP, Dyer JRG, Chapman BB, Kelley JL, Laland KN, et al. Association patterns and foraging behaviour in natural and artificial guppy shoals. Anim Behav. 2008; 76:855–864.
- 81. Coussi-Korbel S, Fragaszy DM. On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Anim Behav. 1995; 50:1441–1453.
- 82. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, Sheldon BC. Social networks predict patch discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 4199–4205.
- 83. Itani J. The study of infra-human culture in Japan. Precultural primate behaviour. 1973; 26–50.
- 84. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ‘small world’ networks. Nature. 1998; 393(6684):440. pmid:9623998
- 85. Lusseau D, Wilson B, Hammond PS, Grellier K, Durban JW, Parsons KM, et al. Quantifying the influence of sociality on population structure in bottlenose dolphins. J Anim Ecol. 2006; 75:14–24. pmid:16903039
- 86. Wiszniewski J, Allen SJ, Möller LM. Social cohesion in a hierarchically structured embayment population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. Anim Behav. 2009; 77:1449–1457.
- 87. Lusseau D, Whitehead H, Gero S. Incorporating uncertainty into the study of animal social networks. Anim Behav. 2008; 75:1809–1815.
- 88. Guimarães PR, de Menezes MA, Baird RW, Lusseau D, Guimarães P, dos Reis SF. Vulnerability of a killer whale social network to disease outbreaks. Phys Rev E. 2007; 76(4):042901.
- 89. Drewe JA, Madden JR, Pearce GP. The social network structure of a wild meerkat population: 1. Inter-group interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2009; 63:1295–1306.
- 90. Manno TG. Social networking in the Columbian ground squirrel, Spermophilus columbianus. Anim Behav. 2008; 75:1221–1228.
- 91. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, Cole EF, Cockburn A, Sheldon BC. Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). Ecol let. 2013; 16(11): 1365–1372.
- 92. Galef BG, Giraldeau L. Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav. 2001; 61:3–15 pmid:11170692
- 93. Harten L, Matalon Y, Galli N, Navon H, Dor R, Yovel Y. Persistent producer-scrounger relationships in bats. Sci Adv. 2018; 4(2): e1603293. pmid:29441356
- 94. Dechmann DK, Kranstauber B, Gibbs D, Wikelski M. Group hunting—a reason for sociality in molossid bats? PLoS ONE. 2010; 5(2):9012.
- 95. Cvikel N, Egert Berg K, Levin E, Hurme E, Borissov I, Boonman A, et al. Bats aggregate to improve prey search but might be impaired when their density becomes too high. Curr Biol. 2015; 25(2):206–211. pmid:25578909