Supply determines demand: influence of partner quality and quantity on the interactions between bats and pitcher plants
- 917 Downloads
Interspecific relationships such as mutualism and parasitism are major drivers of biodiversity. Because such interactions often comprise more than two species, ecological studies increasingly focus on complex multispecies systems. However, the spatial heterogeneity of multi-species interactions is often poorly understood. Here, we investigate the unusual interaction of a bat (Kerivoula hardwickii hardwickii) and two pitcher plant species (Nepenthes hemsleyana and N. bicalcarata) whose pitchers serve as roost for bats. Nepenthes hemsleyana offers roosts of higher quality, indicated by a more stable microclimate compared to N. bicalcarata but occurs at lower abundance and is less common than the latter. Whereas N. hemsleyana benefits from the roosting bats by gaining nitrogen from their feces, the bats’ interaction with N. bicalcarata seems to be commensal or even parasitic. Bats stayed longer in roosts of higher quality provided by N. hemsleyana and preferred them to pitchers of N. bicalcarata in a disturbance experiment. Moreover, bats roosting only in pitchers of N. hemsleyana had a higher body condition and were less infested with parasites compared to bats roosting in pitchers of N. bicalcarata. Our study shows how the local supply of roosts with different qualities affects the behavior and status of their inhabitants and—as a consequence—how the demand of the inhabitants can influence evolutionary adaptations of the roost providing species.
KeywordsKerivoula hardwickii Nepenthes Mutualism Roost selection Roost quality
We thank Liaw Lin Ji for assistance in the field and K. Fischer for helpful statistical advice. D. Dekeukeleire, J. Lambert, R. Simon and two anonymous referees kindly reviewed the manuscript. The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the German Research Foundation (DFG: KE 746/5-1) and the University of Brunei Darussalam [RG/1(105) & RG/1(193)] funded this project. The Forestry Department of Brunei Darussalam granted permits to work in the field. This was an observational study of free-ranging animals. The experimental protocols adhered to the Animal Behaviour Society guidelines for the use of animals in research and were approved by the University Brunei Darussalam Research Committee (UBD/PNC2/2/RG 105 &193).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Anonymous (2008) Government of Brunei Darussalam. Heart of Borneo Project Implementation Framework, Negara Brunei DarussalamGoogle Scholar
- Arthur L, Lemaire M (2009) Les chauves-souris de France, Belgique. Luxembourg et Suisse. Biotope. Museum national d’HistoireNaturelle, MèzeGoogle Scholar
- Ashton PS, Kamariah AS, Said IM (2003) A field guide to the forest trees of Brunei Darussalam. Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei DarussalamGoogle Scholar
- Clarke C (2006) Nepenthes of Borneo. Natural History Publications in association with Science and Technology Unit, Kota KinabaluGoogle Scholar
- Davis SJ, Becker P (1996) Floristic composition and stand structure of mixed dipterocarp and heath forests in Brunei Darussalam. J Trop For Sci 8:542–569Google Scholar
- Dechmann DK, Kalko EK, Kerth G (2004) Ecology of an exceptional roost: energetic benefits could explain why the bat Lophostoma silvicolum roosts in active termite nests. Evol Ecol Res 6:1037–1050Google Scholar
- Fraser AM, Axén AH, Pierce NE (2001) Assessing the quality of different ant species as partners of a myrmecophilous butterfly. Oecologia 129:452–460Google Scholar
- Klopfer P (1963) Behavioral aspects of habitat selection: the role of early experience. Wilson Bull 75:15–22Google Scholar
- Macfarlane JM (1908) Nepenthaceae. In: Engler A (ed) Sarraceniales. Das Pflanzenreich, vol 111. von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, pp 1–92Google Scholar
- Payne J, Francis CM, Phillipps K (1985) A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. Sabah Society, World Wildlife Fund Malaysia, Kota KinabaluGoogle Scholar
- Perkins JM (1996) Does competition for roosts influence bat distribution in a managed forest? In: Barclay RMR, Brigham RM (eds) Bats and Forests Symposium, October 19-21, 1995. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, pp 164–172Google Scholar
- Radovsky FJ (1967) The Macronyssidae and Laelapidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) parasitic on bats. Univ Calif Publ Entomol 46:1–288Google Scholar
- Whitaker JO Jr, Ritzi CM, Dick CW (2009) Collecting and preserving bat ectoparasites for ecological study. In: Kunz TH, Parsons S (eds) Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 806–827Google Scholar