Roosting ecology of Stenodermatinae bats (Phyllostomidae): evolution of foliage roosting and correlated phenotypes

Abstract

1.Roosting ecology has probably shaped several aspects of bat evolution. Although Phyllostomidae species are known to use more types of roosts than any other chiropteran lineage, foliage roosting is almost entirely restricted to the frugivorous members of the subfamily Stenodermatinae. There are relatively few studies on the roosting ecology of stenodermatines other than leaf tent users, and there have been few attempts to reconstruct the evolution of the peculiar foliage-roosting habits of these fruit bats. 2. Our aim was to reconstruct the evolution of foliage roosting in the Phyllostomidae phylogeny, and to test correlation hypotheses between roost types, pelage markings, and body size. 3. We performed ancestral character reconstructions using stochastic mappings on a molecular phylogeny of Phyllostomidae and reviewed literature records on roosts used by Stenodermatinae. Correlations between roosting habits and pelage patterns were calculated using phylogenetic logistic regressions. 4. Over 1200 records of roost use for 48 Stenodermatinae bat species were found in the literature. Most of the observations consisted of foliage roosting records; the second most common type of roost were caves and crevices, which was followed by holes in standing trees. 5. Our results support a single origin of foliage roosting in Phyllostomidae, which we interpreted as a synapomorphy uniting Rhinophyllinae with the Stenodermatinae. We estimated a minimum of two origins of tent roosting within Phyllostomidae, and our reconstruction suggests that it was basal in the Rhinophyllinae + Stenodermatinae clade. 6. Pelage markings of stenodermatines explained the type of roost, indicating that having white stripes or white spots contrasting with background pelage is related to foliage roosting. Species that use leaf tents are smaller than ones that do not, but group size does not appear to be correlated with tent use. 7. Further studies of foliage-roosting bat species that do not use leaf tents may shed light on the mode of evolution of this complex behavioural character.

Tent‐roosting may have driven the evolution of yellow skin coloration in Stenodermatinae bats

“…This contrasts with the recent review of Garbino and Tavares (), who concluded that the common ancestor of Stenodermatinae bats most probably roosted in tents. This discordance may be due to the difference in sample size, as Garbino and Tavares () study included 43 species of Stenodermatinae bats, about 40% less than ours, but also to the absence of species out of Stenodermatinae in our study. As we do not have any hypothesis that could predict an effect of yellow skin coloration on the occurrence of tent‐roosting, a role of tent‐roosting as a driver of skin coloration should be considered as the most likely explanation.…”

A multiple peak adaptive landscape based on feeding strategies and roosting ecology shaped the evolution of cranial covariance structure and morphological differentiation in phyllostomid bats

“…They argue that roosting ecology may be understood as a complex interaction of both biotic and abiotic variables, and roosting strategies may be directly influenced by the distribution and availability of food resources, among other things (Kunz and Lumsden ). Previous works have demonstrated that traits associated with roosting ecology might explain some morphological variation seen in phyllostomids (Garbino and Tavares ; Santana et al. ).…”

“…), and living species have been highly successful in exploiting an array of roosting environments (Kunz and Lumsden ; Voss et al. ; Garbino and Tavares ) and food resources (Giannini and Kalko ). Their feeding strategies are exceptionally diverse among mammals, including insects, vertebrates, fruit, pollen, nectar, young leaves, and even blood (Ferrarezi and Gimenez ; Freeman ; Wetterer et al.…”

“…We explored the evolution of morphological integration in the most ecologically diverse clade of mammals, the New World leaf-nosed bats, using a large dataset and combining both phylogenetic comparative methods and quantitative genetic approaches. The family Phyllostomidae evolved in the New World in the last 30 million years (Rojas et al 2016), and living species have been highly successful in exploiting an array of roosting environments (Kunz and Lumsden 2003;Voss et al 2016;Garbino and Tavares 2018) and food resources (Giannini and Kalko 2004). Their feeding strategies are exceptionally diverse among mammals, including insects, vertebrates, fruit, pollen, nectar, young leaves, and even blood (Ferrarezi and Gimenez 1996;Freeman 2000;Wetterer et al 2000;Giannini and Kalko 2004;Gardner 2007;Baker et al 2012).…”

Laboulbeniales hyperparasites (Fungi, Ascomycota) of bat flies: Independent origins and host associations

“…Artibeus and Sturnira are two genera of bats (Phyllostomidae, Stenodermatinae) that use hollow trees as main roosting sites, whereas most other stenodermatine bats roost in foliage or leaf tents (Evelyn & Stiles, ; Garbino & Tavares, ; Patterson et al., ). As a consequence, species of three genera of bat flies parasitize these two host genera.…”