https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7393-3878
Figures
Abstract
Insectivorous bats are increasingly recognised for their role in suppressing agricultural pests. To better understand the value of their ecosystem services, it is pertinent to assess their predation quantitatively. In this context, studying frequent anthropophilic bats that form large colonies is particularly interesting, as the ecosystem services they provide are more substantial. Building on this motivation, we analysed the diet of six horseshoe bat colonies—three Rhinolophus hipposideros and three R. ferrumequinum—across different landscapes within their optimal distribution area, focusing on their consumption of those pests. We found that these bats consistently consumed a variety of pests, with consumption correlating with outbreaks of the pest species. Some of these species were previously unknown in the area or were not fought against by farmers. This underscores the value of bats as sensitive trackers of current and emerging insect communities and potential pests, as they can detect and consume species that may go unnoticed or unmonitored by conventional human surveys. Additionally, we estimated the overall pest consumption by these bat species in the study area and assessed consumption at the colony level. Our estimates indicate that pest consumption during the breeding season totalled nearly 3 tons of insects. These findings underscore the importance of maintaining favourable habitats for common bats as they can play a vital role in controlling and mitigating ecosystem imbalances caused by changes in farming practices, landscape disturbances, or climate change.
Citation: Aldasoro M, Diaz de Cerio O, Vallejo N, Olasagasti L, Aihartza J (2026) Pest consumption by common bats in diverse landscapes. PLoS One 21(6): e0347853. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347853
Editor: Mark A. Davis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: May 27, 2025; Accepted: April 8, 2026; Published: June 17, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Aldasoro 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: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Further information related to the data and study context is also available in the following articles: Aldasoro, M., de Cerio, O. D., Russo, D., Vallejo, N., Olasagasti, L., Goiti, U., & Aihartza, J. (2025). Molecular Dietary Analysis Reveals Plasticity in Habitat Requirements of a Clutter Specialist Bat. Basic and Applied Ecology, 84:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2025.03.002. Aldasoro, M., de Cerio, O. D., Russo, D., Vallejo, N., Olasagasti, L., Goiti, U., & Aihartza, J. (2025). Consistent Choice of Prey Source Habitat Across Diverse Landscapes by a Selective Insectivorous Bat. Integrative Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.70001.
Funding: This research was funded by grant PID2019-108123GB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union, and by the Basque Government (Research grant IT1571-22) and its Biodiversity Directorate (Expedient No 049‐2022‐42). 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
Insectivorous bats feed on a wide variety of arthropods, including many pest species such as, moths, beetles, and other insects that can damage crops and forests (e.g., [1–4]). By acting as natural consumers of these insects, bats function as effective suppressors of pest populations within the ecosystems they inhabit [5–8]. Thus, bats can offer essential ecosystem services that help mitigate environmental and economic impacts of pest outbreaks, reducing the need for chemical pest control [6,9].
Seasonal dietary studies have revealed the remarkable adaptability of bats in their feeding habits. They exhibit high dietary plasticity, shifting their prey use in response to changes in local insect availability, including sudden pest outbreaks [10–15]. Bats often adjust their foraging areas to those with greater prey availability [16], forage opportunistically [14], and even consistently consume insects originating in habitats outside their typical hunting grounds [17]. Because bats adjust their diets and foraging habitats, they are highly effective pest suppressors, as many agricultural pest insects tend to have cyclic outbreaks [18].
Faecal DNA metabarcoding has become a powerful tool for characterizing bat diets, allowing researchers to detect a wide range of prey, including numerous agricultural and forestry pests [4,19]. Despite technical challenges in obtaining reliable quantitative estimates—stemming from of faecal DNA (e.g., [20–22]) and can be difficult even with targeted qPCR [10], metabarcoding still provides detailed insight into which pest species bats consume. Moreover, studies that focus specifically on pest suppression have estimated consumption rates using qPCR or metabarcoding [10,14]. Exclosure experiments consistently demonstrate that bats play a key role in reducing crop-damaging insect populations (e.g., [23–27]). While estimates of pest consumption by bats are approximations, given variation in their feeding patterns and dependence on prey availability across landscapes, it is crucial to understand the extent of bat pest consumption across various agroecosystems. This understanding is key to discussing pest regulation and evaluating the actual value of bat insectivory as an ecosystem service [28].
Abundant bat species are more likely to act as significant pest suppressors, as effective predation requires a high density of predators (e.g., [7,9,29,30]). They can form large, stable colonies, amplifying their impact on pest suppression. Since effective predation (potentially leading to control of pest populations) requires a high predator density [28], larger populations can collectively consume more pests. The larger the population, the greater the collective consumption of pests, leading to a more significant reduction in harmful insect populations. This collective impact underscores the significance of bat populations in pest suppression, reinforcing the need to protect both these species and their habitats to maximise their ecological contributions [28].
The Greater Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber 1774) and the Lesser Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein 1800) are widely distributed cave-dwelling species in karstic areas where roosting is not a limiting factor. R. ferrumequinum is a larger species and emits higher frequency calls than R. hipposideros [31,32]. These species are abundant in regions such as the Northern Iberian Peninsula [33,34], forming maternity colonies of several hundred individuals. Our study examines which pest species are most frequently consumed by these two widespread bat species across their active season and across different agroforestry landscapes. By identifying the key pests in their diet and estimating the total biomass consumed, we aim to clarify the extent to which these bats contribute to natural pest suppression. Together, these insights help highlight the ecological and agricultural importance of their foraging activity.
Materials and methods
Ethics statement
This study did not involve animal handling, as the samples were collected non-invasively using paper collectors placed beneath the colony, thereby avoiding animal disturbances. Therefore, the ethics committee of the University of the Basque Country (EHU) has granted this study an ethical exemption because it is not considered a “procedure” under the Spanish Royal Decree 53/2013, which establishes the basic standards applicable to the protection of animals used in experiments and other scientific purposes.
Study area and colonies
The study was carried out in the Basque Country, northern Iberian Peninsula. Three Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and three R. hipposideros roosts were sampled (Fig 1), with significant differences in land use and climate (Table 1).
The main map illustrates the five primary sampling locations across the northern Iberian Peninsula. Points are colour-coded by species: purple represents Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Rfe) and yellow represents R. hipposideros (Rhi). The split-colored marker at Caseda (CA) indicates a site where both species were sampled. The inset (bottom left) depicts the location of the study area within the Iberian Peninsula and its position relative to the Spanish-French border.
Sampling bat droppings
In 2022, we sampled colonies of both Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Rhinolophus hipposideros throughout the maternity season, using non-invasive methods to avoid disturbing the animals. Sampling for R. ferrumequinum began in Julian Week 9 at UX (March), with BA and CArf colonies following in Week 15 (mid April), while R. hipposideros sampling started in Julian Week 17 (late April) across the MA, ZA, and CA-Rh colonies. UX bats left first on Week 27 (beginning of July), followed by CA-Rf bats in Week 35 (late August) and BA bats in Week 37 (mid-September), while MA bats stayed until Week 39 (end of September), two weeks longer than the ZA and CA-Rh colonies (Week 37). Paper sheets were placed under the bats every fortnight to collect the freshest faeces, preserving the DNA quality.
We collected up to 24 small “community samples” of four to six pellets each for each sampling event (adapted from [36,37]). These samples aim to reflect the diet of the entire maternity colony throughout the sampling period, rather than the contributions from individual animals. We aimed to collect the freshest, most intact pellets to ensure the best quality DNA. In some colonies of R. ferrumequinum, mixed with Myotis emarginatus, we selected the larger pellets because they most likely belonged to R. ferrumequinum. All in all, 413 community samples were collectedfor R. hipposideros and 377 for R. ferrumequinum for sequencing and analysis.
In some R. ferrumequinum colonies that were mixed with Myotis emarginatus, sequencing revealed DNA contamination in a subset of samples. We therefore removed the contaminated samples and merged the remaining clean ones, analysing them at the monthly rather than weekly level to maintain a statistically robust sample size. This procedure yielded 237 clean samples. After filtering the samples, we examined any possible correlation between Myotis emarginatus Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) and prey species. No clear correlations were found, so we assumed that the analysed species in the diet belonged to the prey of Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. In the case of R. hipposideros, no contamination issues were detected, so the sample size remained sufficient to retain the weekly analysis.
DNA extraction, PCR amplification, library preparation and sequencing
We extracted DNA from frozen individual faecal samples (up to 280 mg) using the Kingfisher extraction tool (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.) after homogenising them with the Precellys 24 Touch Homogeniser (Bertin Technologies SAS, France). From the extracts, two 178- and 180-bp different mini-COI segments of the mitochondrial DNA cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcode region were amplified with FWH1 (fwhF1/fwhF2) [38] and ANML (CO1490/CO1‐CFMRa) [39] primers, respectively. Amplifications were performed using the QIAGEN Multiplex PCR Kit (Qiagen Iberia, S.L. Madrid) in 25 μl PCR reactions, according to the manufacturer’s protocols. Libraries were built using Illumina’s Nextera XT kit, and samples were sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq platform (SP Flow Cell kit v2 PE: 2 x 250 bp (500 cycles)/ 800Mreads). PCR amplification, DNA library construction and sequencing processes were carried out at the Genomics and Proteomics General Service (SGIker) of the University of the Basque Country.
Bioinformatic analyses
We performed primer-based separation, quality control, sequence pre-processing, and collapsed identical sequences into single sequences using CUTADAPT [40] and VSEARCH [41]. We clustered sequences into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTU) by VSEARCH at a 97% similarity threshold [42] using the “–cluster_size” command. Subsequently, we cleaned up chimaera OTUs with USEARCH’s “-uchime3_denovo” command. Only OTUs with an abundance higher than 0.5% in any sample unit were selected for the analysis.
The taxonomic assignment of each OTU was performed by comparing the representative sequence against reference sequences in GenBank (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; date 2023-08-28) using the “-blastn” command [43]. Only hits with pairwise identity above 98% and e-values below 1e-20 were accepted [44,45] to ensure that the match did not occur by chance. We downloaded the arthropod species databases for Spain, France and Portugal from GBIF (www.gbif.org; date 2022-11-03) to verify that the identified species encompassed our study area. OTUs with multiple potential assignments were carefully reviewed and manually refined to assign the most accurate taxa to each OTU based on pairwise identity and species distribution.
Diet analysis and pest assessment
We only used OTUs classified as potential prey for the analysis, with data converted to weighted percentages of occurrences (wPOO)—a metric based on presence/absence data that provides a good proxy of consumption [22,46]— and frequency of occurrence (FOO) [22]. Full diet details can be found in [47,48]. We compared the species identified in the diet with pest databases, mainly the Integrated Pest Management Guides of the Spanish Government [49]. Core diets were analysed by selecting the species with a Frequency of Occurrence (FOO) above 5% in each colony [50].
A quantitative approach to pest insect consumption
Acknowledging the methodological uncertainties mentioned in the introduction, these estimations aim to assess a range of pest consumption. As an initial quantitative approach, we estimated pest consumption for each colony over the full five-month sampling season. We first estimated the total pest consumption ranges for each species in the Southern (Iberian part) Basque Country (17,625 km²) and then calculated the consumption rates for each colony based on their population sizes and mean pest consumption values (Supporting Information 1), using the following formula:
Pest Consumption (g) = c x mean weight x pop size x wPOO
c: Night prey consumption estimates. c1: Kurta et al. [51] estimated that in the temperate insectivorous bat Myotis lucifugus, individuals should daily eat about 70% of their body weight in insects to fulfil their requirements during pregnancy and lactation; c2: different studies estimated this value on the 30% in diverse species (e.g., [52–55]). We used 30% and 70% as approximate lower and upper bounds to capture the variability reported in the literature across species, seasons, and reproductive stages.
mean weight: Species mean weight (23.5 g for R. ferrumequinum and 6.5 g for R. hipposideros, based on the information found in the Handbook of the Mammals of Europe-Chiroptera [31,32].
pop size: Population estimates were derived from the research developed in part of the Basque Country by [56], supplemented and validated with our research group’s most recent unpublished data. We extrapolated the available data for the species R. ferrumequinum to our study area. For R. hipposideros, no information was available; however, since other studies have reported similar population sizes for R. ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros [33,34], we used the same estimate for both species: 15,000 individuals.
wPOO: Mean pest consumption (wPOO from our study) (Table 2).
Results
R. hipposideros
We found pests in 304 out of 406 faecal samples. 93.94% of samples were positive for pests in ZA, 79.08% in MA, and 48.76% in CA. In total, 66 identified taxa belong to pest species or genera (Supporting Information 1). We found 40 pest species in the diets of ZA, 45 in MA and 37 in CA. Pest species were consumed throughout the entire season in every colony. The peak of pest consumption in ZA was in August (weeks 31–35); in MA, it was in July (weeks 27 and 29) and at the end of August (week 35); finally, in CA, it was at the end of April (week 17) and the beginning of August (week 31) (Fig 2).
Note that week 39 only has data for the MA colony. ZA: Zarautz; MA: Matxinbenta; CA: Caseda.
We identified 13 pest species in the core diets of the colonies, primarily associated with orchards and tree plantations (see Table 3). In ZA, where vineyards and fruit trees are economically significant, the pest species were directly linked to these agricultural sectors and horticultural plants (e.g., Cydia sp., Zeuzera pyrina, Noctua pronuba, N. comes, Autographa gamma). Similarly, in MA, most pest species were associated with fruit and nut trees. In CA, however, the pest species in the core diet were associated with forest trees (Cydia fagiglandana and Rhyacionia buoliana).
Additionally, some pest species not part of the colonies’ core diet ranked among the top ten most consumed per week, indicating seasonal variations in consumption (Fig 3). For instance, Cydia amplana in ZA has been identified as a pest of fruit trees. In CA, we found five additional pest insect species: one associated with fruit trees and nut trees (Cydia pomonella), one with Quercus sp. (Aleimma loeflingiana) and two with Oryza sativa (Cricotopus annulator and Orthocladius oblidens).
The species have been selected from the five most consumed per week and colony. Consumption has been calculated as wPOO. (a) ZA: Zarautz colony, (b) MA: Matxinbenta and (c) CA: Caseda.
Furthermore, we must point out that Opogona sacchari was consistently consumed throughout the season (FOO 72.73%) in ZA at a much higher consumption rate than other species. In fact, during week 31, it reached a consumption of 15% wPOO, while the other species did not exceed 5% (Fig 3; Fig 4).
The horizontal axis shows sampling weeks, and the vertical axis in (a) wPOO and in (b) monthly consumption estimate in kg, calculated from c1 (in dark, following Kurta et al. [51]) and c2 (in light, following several authors, as noted in the text).
R. ferrumequinum
We found pests in 147 out of 237 samples. 84.34% were positive samples for pests in BA, 59.26% in CA and 39.73% in UX. In total, 50 identifications were pest species or genera (Supporting Information 1). We found 39 pest species in BA, 29 in CA and 22 in UX. Pest species were consumed throughout the entire season in every colony. The peak of pest consumption in BA coincided with the general pattern, while the second highest in CA occurred in June, followed by July. Finally, May showed the highest pest consumption in UX, followed by July and June (Fig 5).
Note that month 3 has data only for the UX colony, and months 8 and 9 have data only for BA and CA, respectively. BA: Balmaseda; CA: Caseda; UX: Uxue.
We found 20 pest species in the core diets (Table 4). BA was the colony where more pest species were consistently consumed. It had 17 species in its core diet, followed by CA with 6 and UX with just 2 pest species. Most species were related to horticultural crops, fruit and nut trees, and some were among the 10 most consumed prey in some months. In CA, even if the main consumed prey species were linked to forestry (Malacosoma neustria, Cydia fagiglandana, Thaumetopoea pityocampa), others were associated with orchards and horticultural species (Opogona sacchari and Agrotis segetum).
Certain species have shown notable consumption over time, underscoring their importance. For instance, Opogona sacchari in BA was the most consumed species, with a total wPOO of 1.95% and a FOO of 53%. Its monthly consumption exceeds 2.5% from May to July (Fig 4).
Following the typical emergence pattern of insects, but especially that of pest species, the consumption of these prey also peaks during their periods of highest abundance (Fig 6; Gil et al. [49]). Some of the most consumed pests affect certain crops of commercial value, such as vineyards, diverse vegetables, and nut or fruit trees. It is the case of Tuta absoluta in UX, affecting different Solanaceae species; Agrotis segetum and other Agrotis species affecting vineyards, different orchard species or corn in CA and BA; or Thaumetopoea pityocampa, which affects conifers in CA, especially in BA, where conifer plantations are of great economic importance.
Species have been selected from the five most consumed species per week and colony. Consumption has been calculated as wPOO. (a) BA: Balmaseda colony, (b) CA: Caseda and (c) UX: Uxue.
Pest consumption estimates
Despite R. ferrumequinum exhibiting, on average, less frequent pest consumption (in terms of wPOO) than R. hipposideros, its larger size results in significantly higher overall consumption (mass of pests). The estimated consumption for R. ferrumequinum bat ranges from 1.21 tons (when c = 0.3) to 2.83 tons (when c = 0.7) of pests over five months, in contrast to the 0.38 to 0.88 tons consumed by R. hipposideros(values calculated for a 17,625 km² study area).
The highest pest consumption value for R. ferrumequinum was assessed in BA, with consumption ranging from 33.98 to 79.28 kg. This was followed by CA, which ranged from 10.37 to 24.21 kg, and by UX, which ranged from 8.39 to 19.58 kg. On the other hand, although individual pest consumption was higher in R. hipposideros (in terms of wPOO), their lower nightly intake resulted in much lower overall colony pest consumption. The colony with the highest pest consumption was ZA, with a range of 5.22 to 12.18 kg, followed by MA, with 4.61 to 10.76 kg, and then the smallest colony, CA, with a range of 0.52 to 1.21 kg. In general, pest consumption tended to be higher in areas with higher levels of urbanisation (Table 1; [47,48].
Based on the foraging range estimates of R ferrumequinum (approximately 5 km radius from the roost: [57–61]) and R. hipposideros (600 m radius in average: [62]), at the CA site, the foraging ranges of the two colonies are likely to overlap, potentially enhancing local pest suppression through combined predation.
Discussion
Our results confirm that these horseshoe bat species consume a wide range of agroforestry pest insects [4,50]. Some of these pests are associated with economically important crops such as vineyards, orchards, and diverse vegetables. However, we emphasize that the total number of pest species consumed is less significant than the subset of taxa more consistently detected across samples. While many prey species appear only sporadically or as ‘accidental’ detections, others—though representing a small absolute percentage of the total diet—exhibit higher relative frequencies and constitute what is described as the species’ “core diet” [50]. In the context of the high taxonomic diversity captured by DNA metabarcoding, a weighted Percentage of Occurrence (wPOO) of 5% reflects a stable dietary component compared to the vast majority of prey taxa that appear at trace levels (wPOO < 1%). Consequently, these more frequent detections identify the pests that are most systematically integrated into the foraging ecology of these bat species.
The insect taxa comprising the core diet of bats are relevant because they often undergo significant outbreaks, allowing bats to benefit from their population peaks and increases in density [16]. Insectivorous bats show notable adaptability, allowing them to exploit localized insect hotspots and episodic outbreaks [11,12,14,15,63,64]. This dietary adaptability enables wide-dietary-spectrum bats to contribute to the suppression of various pest taxa, providing a notable ecosystem service.
The enormous seasonal variability in pest consumption that we have found, which likely responds to pest outbreaks, is a significant finding. This pattern has already been described in other studies and aligns with the typical seasonal insect consumption pattern of bats [3,14,15]. Additionally, the variability in pest consumption may be influenced by surrounding habitats, which likely shape local arthropod diversity. Furthermore, the discovery of species linked to rice crops in CA suggests that bats’ impact can extend beyond their foraging areas [17]—up to 4.2 km from the roost [62]— thanks to the river’s connectivity, as rice croplands are located kilometres downstream from the maternity roost (maps available at [47]).
Pest consumption in the CA and UX regions was remarkably lower than in the northern colonies. This difference can be attributed to the diverse natural habitats nearby, with a high arthropod diversity. Bats in these areas have access to large rivers with well-preserved riparian forests near their colonies, providing them with a substantial supply of riparian and generalist prey [47,48]. Furthermore, the predominant agricultural model in the region is intensive, in which farmers presumably manage the major pest species affecting these crops, with specific or generalist pesticides. Pesticide use could also explain the lower levels of pest consumption in these areas.
The estimates we have made regarding insect consumption by bats are not exact. On the one hand, the total amount of insects consumed by bats each night can vary significantly, ranging from 30% to 100% of their body weight (e.g., [51,52,55]). Additionally, consumption rates can differ between species and fluctuate with the seasons, as our results have demonstrated. Moreover, there are no precise population estimates for these bat species. Despite these limitations, our estimates provide a valid range that helps us quantitatively assess these bats’ impact on agriculture and highlights the importance of frequent and abundant bat species [28].
A study by Aizpurua and Alberdi [65] examined the impact of European bats on pest arthropods. They found that R. ferrumequinum and R. euryale are among the largest consumers of pests per individual bat. While R. ferrumequinum has a broader diet, which results in a lower pest incidence, its larger body size enables it to consume a significant quantity of pests, making its overall pest consumption comparable to that of more specialised species. Similarly, our results show that although the average weight proportion of pest species (wPOO) was lower in R. ferrumequinum compared to R. hipposideros, the total weight of pests consumed was greater in R. ferrumequinum. However, R. hipposideros locally exerted intense predatory pressure on pest species such as Opogona sacchari during its peak occurrence. Overall, these findings, together with those of Aizpurua and Alberdi [65], indicate that horseshoe bats play a particularly important role in local pest suppression within the study area and are likely important contributors to pest control within the broader European bat community.
While the pest consumption of individual bat species is interesting, the interactions among different bat species within the same environment are even more intriguing. Research indicates that various bat species belonging to different guilds —and therefore with varying adaptations of foraging/preferences— feed on similar agricultural pest species, including Agrotis sp., Autographa gamma, Mythimna sp., Noctua sp., Pandemis heparana, Peridroma saucia, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, among others (e.g., [3,4,14,66], present study). This shared predation implies that when agricultural pests —or other insect outbreaks— are present, bats in the area tend to feed on them consistently. Consequently, bat communities can play a vital role in controlling pest outbreaks.
We would also like to emphasise the potential of bats to detect outbreaks of pest species, including those that are unknown or those for which no control measures are in place. A notable example in this study is Opogona sacchari, a moth species that affects more than a hundred crop types (EPPO Global Database). Although this species is listed as an agricultural pest in Portugal and France, it was previously unknown in continental Spain. Its significant presence in the diets of both R. ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros, in BA and ZA, respectively, indicates that it is already widespread and may impact various agroforestry crops in the study area. Therefore, we want to highlight the value of bats as trackers of present and future entomofauna and pest controllers, as they can detect and consume species that may go unnoticed or unmonitored by conventional human surveys. [67]. Hence, common bat species can help control and mitigate ecosystem imbalances caused by factors such as changes in farming practices, landscape disturbances, and climate change, offering a hopeful perspective on their ecological impact.
Finally, we would like to emphasise the importance of protecting bats’ natural roosts, installing artificial roosts, and maintaining landscape heterogeneity, as these are crucial for preserving their ecosystem services [8]. Roost conservation is especially vital for cave-dwelling species, as underground habitats are vulnerable to disturbances and require regulation and protection [68,69]. Artificial roosts can support bat populations in areas with limited natural shelters, such as agroecosystems, enhancing their ecosystem contributions [7,70–72]. Additionally, promoting habitat connectivity benefits arthropod populations and improves bat foraging opportunities [73]. These results also underscore the need for enhanced public education on the ecological importance of bats and their ecosystem services, as increased awareness and positive perceptions can support conservation actions and long-term population stability (e.g., [74,75]).
Supporting information
Supporting information 1. Pest identifications in R. hipposideros and R. ferrumequinum diets and their per-sample wPOO values.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347853.s001
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the Deputies of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia for allowing us to conduct sampling in the colonies and the managers of the Balmaseda, Zarautz and Matxinbenta churches and the Uxue hut for their willingness to grant access to the colonies. We also express our gratitude for the technical and human support provided by the Genomics Service team at SGIker (UPV/EHU/ ERDF, EU). Finally, we sincerely thank everyone who assisted us throughout the sampling and the entire process.
References
- 1. Whitaker Jr JO. Food of the big brown bat eptesicus fuscus from maternity colonies in Indiana and Illinois. American Midland Naturalist. 1995;134(2):346.
- 2. Williams-Guillén K, Olimpi E, Maas B, Taylor PJ, Arlettaz R. Bats in the anthropogenic matrix: challenges and opportunities for the conservation of chiroptera and their ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 151–86.
- 3. Aizpurua O, Budinski I, Georgiakakis P, Gopalakrishnan S, Ibañez C, Mata V, et al. Agriculture shapes the trophic niche of a bat preying on multiple pest arthropods across Europe: Evidence from DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol. 2018;27(3):815–25. pmid:29290102
- 4. Baroja U, Garin I, Aihartza J, Arrizabalaga-Escudero A, Vallejo N, Aldasoro M, et al. Pest consumption in a vineyard system by the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros). PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219265. pmid:31318887
- 5. Kunz TH, Braun de Torrez E, Bauer D, Lobova T, Fleming TH. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1223:1–38. pmid:21449963
- 6. Boyles JG, Cryan PM, McCracken GF, Kunz TH. Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture. Science. 2011;332(6025):41–2.
- 7. Puig-Montserrat X, Torre I, López-Baucells A, Guerrieri E, Monti MM, Ràfols-García R, et al. Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: linking agroecosystems structure to ecological functions. Mammalian Biology. 2015;80(3):237–45.
- 8. Tuneu-Corral C, Puig-Montserrat X, Riba-Bertolín D, Russo D, Rebelo H, Cabeza M, et al. Pest suppression by bats and management strategies to favour it: a global review. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2023;98(5):1564–82. pmid:37157976
- 9. Cleveland CJ, Betke M, Federico P, Frank JD, Hallam TG, Horn J, et al. Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2006;4(5):238–43.
- 10. McCracken GF, Westbrook JK, Brown VA, Eldridge M, Federico P, Kunz TH. Bats track and exploit changes in insect pest populations. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43839. pmid:22952782
- 11. Aizpurua O, Garin I, Alberdi A, Salsamendi E, Baagøe H, Aihartza J. Fishing long-fingered bats (Myotis capaccinii) prey regularly upon exotic fish. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e80163. pmid:24312200
- 12. Lino A, Fonseca C, Goiti U, Pereira MJR. Prey Selection byRhinolophus hipposideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae) in a Modified Forest in Southwest Europe. Acta Chiropterologica. 2014;16(1):75–83.
- 13. Maine JJ, Boyles JG. Bats initiate vital agroecological interactions in corn. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12438–43. pmid:26371304
- 14. Aihartza J, Vallejo N, Aldasoro M, García-Mudarra JL, Goiti U, Nogueras J, et al. Aerospace-foraging bats eat seasonably across varying habitats. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):19576. pmid:37950015
- 15. Vallejo N, Aihartza J, Olasagasti L, Aldasoro M, Goiti U, Garin I. Seasonal shift in the diet of the notched-eared bat (Myotis emarginatus) in the Basque Country: from flies to spiders. Mamm Biol. 2023;103(4):419–31.
- 16. Almenar D, Aihartza J, Goiti U, Salsamendi E, Garin I. Hierarchical patch choice by an insectivorous bat through prey availability components. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012;67(2):311–20.
- 17. Arrizabalaga-Escudero A, Garin I, García-Mudarra JL, Alberdi A, Aihartza J, Goiti U. Trophic requirements beyond foraging habitats: The importance of prey source habitats in bat conservation. Biological Conservation. 2015;191:512–9.
- 18. Cooke BJ, Nealis VG, Régnière J. Insect defoliators as periodic disturbances in northern forest ecosystems. Plant disturbance ecology. Elsevier; 2021. p. 423–61.
- 19. Weier SM, Moodley Y, Fraser MF, Linden VMG, Grass I, Tscharntke T, et al. Insect pest consumption by bats in macadamia orchards established by molecular diet analyses. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2019;18:e00626.
- 20. Piñol J, Mir G, Gomez-Polo P, Agustí N. Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high-throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15(4):819–30. pmid:25454249
- 21. Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP, Bohmann K. Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;9(1):134–47.
- 22. Deagle BE, Thomas AC, McInnes JC, Clarke LJ, Vesterinen EJ, Clare EL, et al. Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?. Mol Ecol. 2019;28(2):391–406. pmid:29858539
- 23. Maas B, Clough Y, Tscharntke T. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecol Lett. 2013;16(12):1480–7. pmid:24131776
- 24. Maas B, Karp DS, Bumrungsri S, Darras K, Gonthier D, Huang JC-C, et al. Bird and bat predation services in tropical forests and agroforestry landscapes. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016;91(4):1081–101. pmid:26202483
- 25. Linden VMG, Grass I, Joubert E, Tscharntke T, Weier SM, Taylor PJ. Ecosystem services and disservices by birds, bats and monkeys change with macadamia landscape heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2019;56(8):2069–78.
- 26. Ancillotto L, Borrello M, Caracciolo F, Dartora F, Ruberto M, Rummo R, et al. A bat a day keeps the pest away: Bats provide valuable protection from pests in organic apple orchards. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2024;78:126558.
- 27. Tuneu-Corral C, Puig-Montserrat X, Flaquer C, Mata VA, Rebelo H, Cabeza M, et al. Bats and rice: Quantifying the role of insectivorous bats as agricultural pest suppressors in rice fields. Ecosystem Services. 2024;66:101603.
- 28. Russo D, Bosso L, Ancillotto L. Novel perspectives on bat insectivory highlight the value of this ecosystem service in farmland: Research frontiers and management implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2018;266:31–8.
- 29.
Pierson editor. Tall trees, deep holes, and scarred landscapes: conservation biology of North American bats. Bat biology and conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1998. p. 309–25.
- 30. Charbonnier Y, Barbaro L, Theillout A, Jactel H. Numerical and functional responses of forest bats to a major insect pest in pine plantations. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109488. pmid:25285523
- 31. Ransome R. Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774). Handbook of the Mammals of Europe. Springer International Publishing. 2023. p. 839–74.
- 32. Schofield H, Reiter G, Dool SE. Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros (André, 1797). Handbook of the Mammals of Europe. Springer International Publishing. 2023. p. 875–908.
- 33.
De Paz C. Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Schreber, 1774. In: Palomo LJ, Gisbert J, Blanco JC, editors. Atlas y libro rojo de los mamíferos terrestres de España. Madrid: Dirección General para la Biodiversidad -SECEM-SECEMU. 2007. p. 134–8.
- 34.
Migens E. Rhinolophus hipposideros Bechstein, 1800. In: Palomo LJ, Gisbert J, Blanco JC, editors. Atlas y libro rojo de los mamíferos terrestres de España. Madrid: Dirección General para la Biodiversidad -SECEM-SECEMU. 2007. p. 139–43.
- 35.
AEMET. Iberian climate atlas. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Rural y Marino, Instituto de Meteorologia de Portugal, editors. Madrid: Agencia Estatal de Meteorología. 2011.
- 36. Andriollo T, Gillet F, Michaux JR, Ruedi M. The menu varies with metabarcoding practices: A case study with the bat Plecotus auritus. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219135. pmid:31276547
- 37. Andriollo T, Michaux JR, Ruedi M. Food for everyone: Differential feeding habits of cryptic bat species inferred from DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol. 2021;30(18):4584–600. pmid:34245618
- 38. Vamos E, Elbrecht V, Leese F. Short COI markers for freshwater macroinvertebrate metabarcoding. MBMG. 2017;1.
- 39. Jusino MA, Banik MT, Palmer JM, Wray AK, Xiao L, Pelton E, et al. An improved method for utilizing high-throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals. Mol Ecol Resour. 2019;19(1):176–90. pmid:30281913
- 40. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17(1):10–2.
- 41. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584. pmid:27781170
- 42. Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, deWaard JR. Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc Biol Sci. 2003;270 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S96-9. pmid:12952648
- 43. Chen Y, Ye W, Zhang Y, Xu Y. High speed BLASTN: an accelerated MegaBLAST search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(16):7762–8. pmid:26250111
- 44. Vesterinen EJ, Lilley T, Laine VN, Wahlberg N. Next generation sequencing of fecal DNA reveals the dietary diversity of the widespread insectivorous predator Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii) in Southwestern Finland. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e82168. pmid:24312405
- 45. Clare EL, Symondson WOC, Broders H, Fabianek F, Fraser EE, MacKenzie A, et al. The diet of Myotis lucifugus across Canada: assessing foraging quality and diet variability. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(15):3618–32. pmid:24274182
- 46. Cuff JP, Windsor FM, Tercel MPTG, Kitson JJN, Evans DM. Overcoming the pitfalls of merging dietary metabarcoding into ecological networks. Methods Ecol Evol. 2022;13(3):545–59.
- 47. Aldasoro M, Diaz de Cerio O, Russo D, Vallejo N, Olasagasti L, Goiti U, et al. Molecular dietary analysis reveals plasticity in habitat requirements of a clutter specialist bat. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2025;84:101–9.
- 48. Aldasoro M, Diaz de Cerio O, Russo D, Vallejo N, Olasagasti L, Garin I, et al. Consistent choice of prey source habitat across diverse landscapes by a selective insectivorous bat. Integr Zool. 2025;:10.1111/1749-4877.70001. pmid:41063477
- 49.
Gil ÁM, de Ojer JLRS, Pérez MR, Ministerio de Agricultura. Guía de gestión integrada de plagas. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Centro de Publicaciones; 2014.
- 50. Tournayre O, Leuchtmann M, Galan M, Trillat M, Piry S, Pinaud D, et al. eDNA metabarcoding reveals a core and secondary diets of the greater horseshoe bat with strong spatio‐temporal plasticity. Environmental DNA. 2020;3(1):277–96.
- 51. Kurta A, Bell GP, Nagy KA, Kunz TH. Energetics of pregnancy and lactation in freeranging little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Physiological Zoology. 1989;62(3):804–18.
- 52. Kunz TH. Feeding ecology of a temperate insectivorous bat (Myotis velifer). Ecology. 1974;55(4):693–711.
- 53. Anthony EL, Kunz TH. Feeding strategies of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in southern New Hampshire. Ecology. 1977;58(4):775–86.
- 54. Mclean JA, Speakman JR. Energy budgets of lactating and non‐reproductive Brown Long‐Eared Bats (Plecotus auritus) suggest females use compensation in lactation. Functional Ecology. 1999;13(3):360–72.
- 55. Moiseienko M, Vlaschenko A. Quantitative evaluation of individual food intake by insectivorous vespertilionid bats (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Biol Open. 2021;10(6):bio058511. pmid:34096574
- 56.
Aihartza J. Quirópteros de araba, Bizkaia y Gipuzkoa: distribución, ecología y conservación. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Basque Country. 2001.
- 57. Stebbings RE. Radio Tracking Greater Horseshoe Bats with Preliminary Observations on Flight Patterns. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. 1982;49:161–73.
- 58.
Jones G, Morton M. Radio-Tracking Studies on Habitat Use by Greater Horseshoe Bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). 1992. p. 521–37.
- 59.
Pir JB. Etho-ökologische Untersuchung einer Wochenstubenkolonie der grossen Hufeisennase (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) in Luxemburg. Giessen, Germany: Universität Giessen; 1994.
- 60.
Duvergé PL. Foraging activity, habitat use, development of juveniles, and diet of the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum—Schreber, 1774) in South-West England. University of Bristol; 1996.
- 61. Fonderflick J, Azam C, Brochier C, Cosson E, Quékenborn D. Testing the relevance of using spatial modeling to predict foraging habitat suitability around bat maternity: A case study in Mediterranean landscape. Biological Conservation. 2015;192:120–9.
- 62. Bontadina F, Schofield H, Naef‐Daenzer B. Radio‐tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland. Journal of Zoology. 2002;258(3):281–90.
- 63. O’Rourke D, Rouillard NP, Parise KL, Foster JT. Spatial and temporal variation in New Hampshire bat diets. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):14334. pmid:35995911
- 64. Andreas M, Naďo L, Bendová B, Uhrin M, Maxinová E, Lučan R, et al. Trophic niche and diet composition of the northernmost population of the Mediterranean horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale) with conservation implications. Mamm Res. 2023;68(2):189–202.
- 65. Aizpurua O, Alberdi A. Mapping the pressure of natural predators on pest arthropods. Authorea Preprints. 2020.
- 66. Garin I, Aihartza J, Goiti U, Arrizabalaga-Escudero A, Nogueras J, Ibáñez C. Bats from different foraging guilds prey upon the pine processionary moth. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7169. pmid:31316870
- 67. Liu Y, Si M, Huang Z, Feng J, Jiang T. Bats are sentinels for invasive pest surveillance based on DNA metabarcoding. Ecological Indicators. 2023;152:110354.
- 68. O’Shea TJ, Cryan PM, Hayman DTS, Plowright RK, Streicker DG. Multiple mortality events in bats: a global review. Mamm Rev. 2016;46(3):175–90. pmid:29755179
- 69. Medellin RA, Wiederholt R, Lopez-Hoffman L. Conservation relevance of bat caves for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biological Conservation. 2017;211:45–50.
- 70. Flaquer C, Torre I, Ruiz-Jarillo R. The value of bat-boxes in the conservation of Pipistrellus pygmaeus in wetland rice paddies. Biological Conservation. 2006;128(2):223–30.
- 71. Long RF, Kiser WM, Kiser SB. Well-placed bat houses can attract bats to Central Valley farms. Cal Ag. 2006;60(2):91–4.
- 72. Boyles JG, Sole CL, Cryan PM, McCracken GF. On estimating the economic value of insectivorous bats: prospects and priorities for biologists. Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer New York. 2013. p. 501–15.
- 73. Costa A, Silva B, Jiménez-Navarro G, Barreiro S, Melguizo-Ruiz N, Rodríguez-Pérez J, et al. Structural simplification compromises the potential of common insectivorous bats to provide biocontrol services against the major olive pest Prays oleae. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2020;287:106708.
- 74. Hoffmaster E, Vonk J, Mies R. Education to action: improving public perception of bats. Animals (Basel). 2016;6(1):6. pmid:26784239
- 75. Boso À, Álvarez B, Pérez B, Imio JC, Altamirano A, Lisón F. Understanding human attitudes towards bats and the role of information and aesthetics to boost a positive response as a conservation tool. Anim Conserv. 2021;24(6):937–45. pmid:34177353