Oecologia

, Volume 154, Issue 3, pp 581–588 | Cite as

Roost selection and roost switching of female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii) as a strategy of parasite avoidance

Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Ectoparasites of vertebrates often spend part of their life cycle in their hosts’ home. Consequently, hosts should take into account the parasite infestation of a site when selecting where to live. In a field study, we investigated whether colonial female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii) adapt their roosting behaviour to the life cycle of the bat fly Basilia nana in order to decrease their contact with infective stages of this parasite. B. nana imagoes live permanently on the bat’s body but deposit puparia in the bat’s roosts. The flies metamorphose independently in the roosts, but after metamorphosis emerge only in the presence of a potential host. In a field experiment, the bats preferred non-contagious to contagious day-roosts and hence were able to detect either the parasite load of roosts or some correlate with infestation, such as bat droppings. In addition, 9 years of observational data on the natural roosting behaviour of female Bechstein’s bats indicate that the bats largely avoid re-occupying roosts when highly contagious puparia are likely to be present as a result of previous occupations of the roosts by the bat colony. Our results indicate that the females adapted their roosting behaviour to the age-dependent contagiousness (emergence probability) of the puparia. However, some infested roosts were re-occupied, which we assume was because these roosts provided advantages to the bats (e.g. a beneficial microclimate) that outweighed the negative effects associated with bat fly infestation. We suggest that roost selection in Bechstein’s bats is the outcome of a trade-off between the costs of parasite infestation and beneficial roost qualities.

Keywords

Behavioural parasite defence Co-evolution Habitat selection Host–parasite interaction Roost fidelity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Christe, B. König, M. Manser, J. Yearsley and three anonymous referees for helpful comments on the manuscript and numerous people for their help during our fieldwork. The handling, marking and observation of Bechstein’s bats were carried out under license from the nature conservancy department of the government of Lower Frankonia. We gratefully acknowledge its support and that of the local department of forestry. The Swiss National Science Foundation (31-59556.99) and the German National Science Foundation (KE 746/2-1) supported this work.

References

  1. Bartonička T, Gaisler J (2007) Seasonal dynamics in the numbers of parasitic bugs (Heteroptera, Cimicidae): a possible cause of roost switching in bats (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Parasitol Res 100:1323–1330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler JM, Roper TJ (1996) Ectoparasites and sett use in European badgers. Anim Behav 52:621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christe P, Oppliger A, Richner H (1994) Ectoparasite affects choice and use of roost sites in the great tit, Parus major. Anim Behav 47:895–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duffy DC (1983) The ecology of tick parasitism on densely nesting Peruvian seabirds. Ecology 64:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hart BL (1994) Behavioral defence against parasites—interaction with parasite invasiveness. Parasitology 109:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hart BL (1997) Behavioural defence. In: Clayton DH, Moore J (eds) Host–parasite evolution: general principles and avian models. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Hausfater G, Meade BJ (1982) Alternation of sleeping grooves by yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus) as a strategy for parasite avoidance. Primates 23:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kerth G (1998) Sozialverhalten und genetische Populationsstruktur bei der Bechsteinfledermaus (Myotis bechsteinii). Wissenschaft und Technik Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Kerth G, König B (1996) Transponder and an infrared-videocamera as methods in a field study on the social behaviour of Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteini). Myotis 34:27–34Google Scholar
  10. Kerth G, König B (1999) Fission, fusion and nonrandom associations in female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii). Behaviour 136:1187–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerth G, Morf L (2004) Behavioural and genetic data suggest that Bechstein’s bats predominantly mate outside the breeding habitat. Ethology 110:987–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerth G, Reckardt K (2003) Information transfer about roosts in female Bechstein’s bats: an experimental field study. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerth G, Mayer F, König B (2000) Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) reveals that female Bechstein’s bats live in closed societies. Mol Ecol 9:793–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kerth G, Weissmann K, König B (2001) Day roost selection in female Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii): a field experiment to determine the influence of roost temperature. Oecologia 126:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerth G, Safi K, König B (2002) Mean colony relatedness is a poor predictor of colony structure and female philopatry in the communally breeding Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunz TH, Lumsden LF (2003) Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB (ed) Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Lausen CL, Barclay RMR (2002) Roosting behaviour and roost selection of female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) roosting in rock crevices in southeastern Alberta. Can J Zool Rev Can Zool 80:1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis SE (1995) Roost fidelity of bats – a review. J Mammal 76:481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis SE (1996) Low roost-site fidelity in pallid bats: associated factors and effect on group stability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Löhrl H (1953) Fledermaus-Fliegen. Nat Volk 83:182–185Google Scholar
  21. Marshall AG (1981) The ecology of ectoparasitic insects. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Møller AP (1993) Ectoparasites increase the cost of reproduction in their hosts. J Anim Ecol 62:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore J (2002) Parasites and the behaviour of animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Oppliger A, Richner H, Christe P (1994) Effect of an ectoparasite on lay date, nest-site choice, desertion, and hatching success in the great tit (Parus-major). Behav Ecol 5:130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pastoret PP, Griebel P, Hervè B, Govaerts A (1998) Handbook of vertebrate immunology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Peinke DM, Brown CR (2005) Burrow utilization by springhares (Pedetes capensis) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Afr Zool 40:37–44Google Scholar
  27. Reckardt K, Kerth G (2006) The reproductive success of the parasitic bat fly Basilia nana (Diptera: Nyctreibiidae) is affected by the low roost fidelity of its host, the Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii). Parasitol Res 98:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richner H (1998) Host–parasite interactions and life-history evolution. Zool Anal Complex Syst 101:333–344Google Scholar
  29. Roper TJ, Ostler JR, Schmid TK, Christian SF (2001) Sett use in European badgers Meles meles. Behaviour 138:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roper TJ, Jackson TP, Conradt L, Bennett NC (2002) Burrow use and the influence of ectoparasites in Brants’ whistling rat Parotomys brantsii. Ethology 108:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryberg O (1947) Studies on bats and bat parasites. Svensk Natur, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  32. Schulz H (1938) Über Fortpflanzung und Vorkommen von Fledermausfliegen (Fam. Nycteribiidae – Diptera, Pupipara). Z Parasitenkd 10:297–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanback MT, Dervan AA (2001) Within-season nest-site fidelity in Eastern Bluebirds: disentangling effects of nest success and parasite avoidance. Auk 118:743–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tripet F, Richner H (1999) Dynamics of hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae subpopulations in blue tit nests. J Insect Behav 12:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoologisches InstitutUniversität ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of Lausanne – BiophoreLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations