Printer Friendly

Influence of thermal environment on food habits of female cave myotis (Myotis velifer).

Quality of food consumed by insectivorous bats depends on requirements of the consumer and amount and type of nutrients in the food. Quantity of food consumed is affected not only by constraints of the consumer, but also by characteristics of prey, such as availability, abundance, and diversity (Herbst, 1988). Therefore, selection of prey by insectivorous bats might be influenced by nutritional quality and energetic content (Kunz, 1988). Kunz (1971) suggested that, in areas where interspecific partitioning of resources is minimal, such as in areas dominated by a single species, prey might be selected for their relative energetic values. Optimization of foraging time would occur if bats seek prey high in energy and nutrients or if they selectively pursue few large insects as opposed to many small insects. Therefore, because of the relationship of obtaining food to energetic expenditure, dietary differences might exist among bats exposed to different energetic stresses (Kunz, 1973).

The cave myotis (Myotis velifer) exhibits a high level of plasticity in selection of roosts. Avila-Flores and Medellin (2004) suggested this to be true for most common, wide-ranging species because optimal roosts often are limited. Some females of this species remain in cave roosts during summer to raise their young, whereas others establish maternity roosts in warmer, manmade structures, such as barns (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Kunz, 1973, 1974; Reid, 1997). In general, cave roosts provide a relatively cool and stable thermal environment, whereas barns provide a more variable environment with temperatures fluctuating both seasonally and daily. During summer, ambient temperature in barns usually is higher than in caves (Kunz, 1973; Kunz and Lumsden, 2003). Substantial differences between ambient temperature and body temperature in cave environments, relative to above-ground roosts, make it necessary for females to regulate their body temperature and use more of their daily energetic allowance for heat production (Kunz and Lumsden, 2003; Speakman and Thomas, 2003), leaving less energy available for embryonic development. Growth of embryos and neonates can be delayed by exposure to prolonged ambient temperatures below the thermal neutral zone because neonates and females in the late stages of pregnancy are unable to adequately regulate their body temperature (Studier and O'Farrell, 1972; Humphrey et al., 1977). Because of reduced metabolic cost, selection of roosts with high ambient temperature (i.e., a smaller difference between ambient and body temperature) is beneficial (McNab, 1969; Studier and O'Farrell, 1976; Speakman and Thomas, 2003). Warm temperatures of roosts in barns, thus, could reduce energetic efforts required to maintain high body temperature. As a result, bats in caves or barns might exhibit differences in their diet (Henreid and Schmidt-Nielson, 1966; Kunz, 1973; Burnett and August, 1981; Kurta and Fujita, 1988). Different types of roosts of M. velifer present an opportunity to determine if food habits mirror differences in roost environments. We hypothesized that bats in barns and caves would exhibit differences in types of prey they consume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS--Study Location.--A population of M. velifer inhabits the Red Hills region of southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma. In south-central Kansas, it is the most common species of bat (Hibbard, 1934; Sparks and Choate, 2000). In summer 2004 (7 June-2 July), we studied maternity roosts of M. velifer in Barber, Comanche, Kiowa, and Pratt counties, Kansas. We collected representative individuals by hand to confirm their identity and deposited the voucher specimens in the Sternberg Museum of Natural History. No other species of bat was observed at any of the maternity roosts.

We located two caves (Gates and Gentry) and two barns (Bergner and Whitney) that were occupied by adult female M. velifer. Caves were <1 km from water on ranches characterized by rolling hills and canyons where vegetation was grazed, mixed-grass prairie. Adult females used one large chamber in each cave for a maternity site. About 10,000-12,000 bats inhabited each cave. Human disturbance to caves was minimal because they were relatively isolated. Barns were <0.4 km from water on active farms surrounded primarily by agricultural land. Both barns were sound structurally and were used by the owners, although use was curtailed in summer when bats were present. About 8,000-10,000 bats roosted in each barn. Although Bergner Barn had a loft and ample space in other areas, bats used only a granary that was 3 m wide, 4 m deep, and 2.5 m high located in the central area of the lower level. This space likely afforded females greater protection from disturbance by humans or predators and from environmental extremes. Bats roosted on walls and the ceiling of the granary. Bats at Whitney Barn roosted on the ceiling of the loft as well as the ceiling of the lower level. During the first week of data collection, bats remained in the loft. However, as temperatures rose and parturition neared, some bats moved to the ceiling of the lower level. Whereas bats in Gates and Gentry caves and Bergner Barn were relatively protected, bats in Whitney Barn were more vulnerable to predation, disturbance, and environmental extremes because doors at one end of the barn were open. In fact, this was the only roost at which obvious signs of predation were found (e.g., holes dug through mounds of guano in the loft, presumably by raccoons, Procyon lotor, to reach bats roosting on the ceiling of the lower level).

Measurement of Temperature-To confirm that there were differences in temperature and, therefore, in energetic demands among roosts, we mounted a Hobo H8, 2-channel, temperature data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, Massachusetts), in each roost to record temperature at the roosting surface and air temperature ca. 1.5-1.8 m beneath the surface on which bats roosted. We took hourly temperature readings for the duration of the study.

A malfunction occurred with the data logger in Bergner Barn in the second one-half of the study, so temperature was not recorded for that period (21 June-12 July). When bats in Whitney Barn roosted in the loft and lower level, we took samples of guano and measurements of temperature at both locations.

We used a one-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test to determine if temperatures recorded in barns were significantly different than temperatures in caves. We used a non-parametric test because the distribution of our data deviated from normal. By using a one-tailed Mann-Whitney Utest, we tested our directional hypothesis that temperatures in barns were significantly higher than temperatures in caves (Zar, 1999). We also used a one-tailed variance-ratio to test the directional hypothesis that temperatures in barns were more variable than temperatures in caves (Zar, 1999).

Collection of Guano--Analysis of fecal pellets has been used in numerous studies to determine diets of insectivorous bats (e.g., Barclay, 1985; Rydell, 1989; Kurta and Whitaker, 1998; Shiel et al., 1998). We used guano from each roost to analyze food habits. We collected samples of guano weekly 25 May-3 July, which corresponded to the time when females congregated in maternity colonies until juveniles became volant and began to forage on their own. A sample is defined as the guano taken from a single container. To collect guano, we placed three containers that were 0.3 [m.sup.2] in diameter on the floor of the cave or barn beneath clusters of bats. Containers were wire frames lined with trash bags that we removed each week at, or just after, dusk (i.e., 2100-2230 h CDT) while females were foraging. We installed new bags each week.

Gates Cave offered a number of challenges to collecting guano. Bats at this location were not located until the final 2 weeks of the study. Also, because of muddy access roads and our inability to reach the study site, guano from the final 2 weeks was collected together. Because of these complications, we took only three samples from this location (29 June-13 July).

Samples from Bergner and Whitney barns obtained in the first 2 weeks of the study (25-31 May and 31 May-7 June) and from Gentry Cave (25 May-1 June and 1-8 June) were collected with plastic sheets placed beneath roosting bats because wire collectors had not been installed. We collected samples of guano from the plastic. Such differences in collection methods do not affect analysis of food habits.

Analysis of Food Habit--We used a combination of traps (e.g., malaise, canopy malaise, and flight) to collect insects near each roost to assemble a reference collection that aided in identification of dietary components. We then followed procedures for fecal analysis outlined by Whitaker (1988) and Shiel et al. (1997). We analyzed 20 pellets from each sample and identified insects in each pellet to order and, when possible, to family. Because of an inadequate sample size for statistical analysis, we quantitatively described data from the analysis of food habits. Data from fecal analyses were used to calculate percentage volume and relative frequency of each taxon of prey in each pellet. Percentage volume and relative frequency of food items from all samples from a single week were averaged. We then averaged weekly averages to yield overall percentage volume and relative frequency for each roost and all weeks of the study. We considered samples collected in the loft and lower level of Whitney Barn to be from a single locality; therefore, we did not describe samples separately. We averaged percentage volume and relative frequency of food items in samples from the loft and lower level for each week, which resulted in a single percentage volume and relative frequency by roost, not by level. Gates Cave was represented only by three samples of guano collected over a 2-week period. Thus, data for Gates Cave described herein likely do not accurately represent diet of females in that roost for the entire study period.

RESULTS--Temperature of Roost--We recorded mean, low, and high temperatures for each week when we collected samples of guano (Table 1). Bats roosting in barns were exposed to significantly warmer thermal environments than bats in caves (roosting surface: Mann-Whitney U-test, U = 0, P < 0.01, [n.sub.1] = 8, [n.sub.2] = 8; air: Mann-Whitney U-test, U = 0, P < 0.01, [n.sub.1] = 6, [n.sub.2] = 7). Temperatures at roosting surfaces in caves also showed significantly less variation than temperatures in barns (variance-ratio test, F = 5.51, P < 0.05, [n.sub.1] = 8, [n.sub.2] = 8). For example, temperature at the roosting surface in Gentry Cave remained relatively cool and constant (mean daily temperature = 21.4 [+ or -] 0.54[degrees]C), whereas temperature at the roosting surface in Whitney Barn was warm and variable (mean daily temperature = 27.7 [+ or -] 3.50[degrees]C; Fig. 1). While a difference in variation of air temperature did occur between caves and barns, it was not statistically significant (variance-ratio test, F = 3.66, P > 0.05, [n.sub.1] = 7, [n.sub.2] = 6). Over the period of 1 week in Gentry Cave, high and low temperatures at the roosting surface were 24.0 and 20.2[degrees]C, respectively. In contrast, high and low temperatures in Whitney Barn were 35.3 and 21.0[degrees]C, respectively. We observed similar patterns of temperature fluctuation throughout the study. Mean temperatures at roosting surface for the entire study period were 20.8 [+ or -] 2.0[degrees]C in the cave and 26.0 [+ or -] 3.8[degrees]C in the barn. Temperatures recorded for the duration of the study increased gradually during the first one-half of the study and then showed more marked increases during the final weeks. We observed the same trends in temperature illustrated by Gentry Cave and Whitney Barn in Gates Cave and Bergner Barn.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Food Habits--We identified arthropod prey items in samples of guano taken from maternity roosts of M. velifer (Table 2). We collected a total of 15, 14, 3, and 15 samples of guano from Bergner Barn, Whitney Barn, Gates Cave, and Gentry Cave, respectively. Percentage volume represented how much of the samples consisted of members of an order, whereas percentage relative frequency represented the number of pellets in which members of an order were found. Coleopterans were dominant food items, comprising 37-44% of volume and occurring in 31-36% of pellets analyzed (Figs. 2a and 2b). Dipterans (10-21% volume, 12-25% frequency), lepidopterans (20-25% volume, 16-19% frequency), and hemipterans (2-13% volume, 19-27% frequency) comprised the next largest portions of diet.

Percentage volume and relative frequency of the orders Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Hemiptera showed little variation among roosts (Fig. 2a), except Gates Cave. This difference might have been because data for this roost were represented by only one collection of guano as opposed to 5-6 collections in the other three roosts; so, temporal variation in numbers and kinds of insects during the study were not represented. Percentage volume and relative frequency of major prey items in samples of guano from Bergner and Whitney barns and Gentry Cave were similar.

Percentage volume and relative frequency of food items of the orders Araneae, Ephemeroptera, Hymenoptera, Neuroptera, Orthoptera, and Trichoptera also showed only slight differences among roosts (Fig. 2b). As with the previous orders, percentage volume and relative frequency of these orders in Gates Cave differed from the other roosts.

DISCUSSION--Adult female M. velifer that roost in caves and barns experience trade-offs between protection from predators, disturbance, and thermoregulatory costs. However, because there is no difference in development of young in caves and barns (Kunz, 1973), bats in the two kinds of roosts must be achieving energetic equilibrium. If bats in caves were not compensating for added energetic demands, development of young might be retarded (Pearson et al., 1952; Davis, 1969; Racey, 1982) because rate of development of neonates is related to temperature (Herreid, 1967; Zahn, 1999). Slower rates of fetal development have been observed in Townsend's big-eared bat (Carynorhinus townsendii) and the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) in cool temperatures (Pearson et al., 1952; Davis, 1969). Additionally, lengths of forearm of juvenile mouse-eared bats (Myotis myotis) roosting in consistently cool temperatures in attics were shorter than forearms of bats roosting in warm attics and more stable, cave-like roosts in rock walls (Zahn, 1999). Delayed parturition could affect juveniles negatively because they cannot exploit food resources efficiently at the time of year when resources are most plentiful (Kunz, 1973). Therefore, reproductive females tend to occupy warmer roost sites presumably to dampen negative effects of cool temperatures (Avila-Flores and Medellin, 2004).

Kunz (1974) studied food habits of M. velifer inhabiting maternity colonies in barns and caves in southern Kansas, but his comparisons were between sexes and between juveniles and adults, not between individuals in different types of roosts. He detected no difference in prey eaten by either group. Absence of difference in diet of males and lactating females indicates that females might not be using selection of prey to compensate for high energetic demands. In this regard, our analysis of food habits of bats in four maternity roosts revealed that there was no qualitative difference in types of arthropod prey consumed. According to optimal-foraging theory, bats in need of greater intake of energy might selectively pursue insects that are higher in nutritional value (Jones and Rydell, 2003). They also might incorporate different foraging strategies in which bats that needed to decrease flight time would pursue fewer large insects rather than greater numbers of small insects. If opportunistic foraging occurs, we assumed that it might occur on a large scale, whereas bats might be more selective on a smaller scale. For example, females might opportunistically choose areas with high density of insects, but might select specific types of insects in those areas. Results of our study, however, do not indicate that bats in either thermal environment select specific types of arthropods. In all roosts, coleopterans were the most frequently consumed prey items followed by hemipterans, lepidopterans, and dipterans. Our results nearly parallel those reported by Kunz (1974, Table 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Lack of difference in dietary composition suggests that other mechanisms might be used to compensate for variability in energetic demands. According to Wang (1924), animals, including bats, have three strategies by which they respond to energetic demands. One strategy is to increase assimilation of energy by increasing consumption. Thus, rather than eating different prey, females under greater energetic stress (i.e., those in cooler environments) might consume more food than females in warmer roosts. A laboratory study of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) showed an inverse relationship between ambient temperature and consumption of food--higher intake of food occurred at lower ambient temperatures (Stones, 1965). This increase in consumption of food evidently compensated for greater energetic demands associated with thermoregulation. Racey and Swift (1981) studied a maternity colony of the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and noted that food-deprived individuals were less able to maintain a high body temperature than those that were well fed. Thus, it is possible that, instead of consuming different types of prey, female M. velifer inhabiting maternity colonies with cool thermal environments are simply eating more food than those inhabiting warmer roosts.

Finally, there is much support for social behavior as a mechanism of energy conservation. Clustering by bats reduces surface area available for heat loss and makes digestion and assimilation more efficient (Twente, 1955; Herreid, 1967; Trune and Slobodchikoff, 1976). The cluster actually can serve as a unit for heat production and cause an increase in temperature at roost sites in caves (Twente, 1955; Betts, 1997). Accordingly, formation of clusters might partially explain the lack of difference in diet in this study, but was observed in both types of roosts. In general, caves housed a greater number of individuals than barns. Individuals in caves tended to form predominately large clusters on the ceiling and in crevices, but also formed smaller, satellite clusters. Individuals in barns also formed clusters but roosted on joists and rafters, as well as the ceiling. We did not measure density of clusters. If bats in cool cave environments were able to form denser clusters, this behavior could compensate for lower ambient temperatures. Based on these findings, we assume that bats reduce expenditures of energy by a suite of actions that culminate in maximum conservation of energy.

We express our thanks to D. W. Sparks and J. O. Whitaker, Jr., Indiana State University, for assistance with analysis of food habits. We thank S. D. Roth, Jr., Kansas Biological Survey, for guidance through the Red Hills of Kansas and for sharing many years of knowledge about the region and the bats that live there. We also thank S. M. Dunn and S. K. Nilz for field support. Finally, we thank R. A. Van Den Bussche, M. J. Hamilton, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. for comments on our manuscript, and V. L. Jackson for statistical assistance. Funding was provided by the Department of Biological Sciences and the Sternberg Museum of Natural History at Fort Hays State University, and by the Fleharty Fellowship, which is sponsored by the family of E. D. Fleharty.

Submitted 21 May 2007. Accepted 1 September 2008. Associate Editor was Troy L. Best.

LITERATURE CITED

AVILA-FLORES, R., AND R A. MEDELLIN. 2004. Ecological, taxonomic, and physiological correlates of cave use by Mexican bats. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 675-687.

BAKKEN, G. S., AND T. H. KUNZ. 1988. Microclimate methods. Pages 303-332 in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

BARBOUR, R. W., AND W. H. DAVIS. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

BARCLAY, R M. R. 1985. Long- versus short-range foraging strategies of hoary (Lasiums cinereus) and silver-haired (Lasionycteris noctivagans) bats and the consequences for prey selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:2507-2515.

BETTS, B. J. 1997. Microclimate in Hell's Canyon used by maternity colonies of Myotis yumanensis. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1240-1250.

BURNETT, C. D., AND P. V. AUGUST. 1981. Time and energy budgets for day roosting in a maternity colony of Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 62:758-766.

DAVIS, R. 1969. Growth and development of young pallid bats, Antrozous pallidus. Journal of Mammalogy 50:729-736.

HERBST, L. H. 1988. Methods of nutritional ecology of plant-visiting bats. Pages 233-246 in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

HERREID, C. F., II. 1967. Temperature regulation, temperature preference and tolerance, and metabolism of young and adult free-tailed bats. Physiological Zoology 40:1-22.

HERREID, C. F., II, AND K SCHMIDT-NIELSEN. 1966. Oxygen consumption, temperature, and water loss in bats from different environments. American Journal of Physiology 211:1108-1112.

HIBBARD, C. W. 1934. Notes on some cave bats of Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 37:235-238.

HUMPHREY, S. R., A. R. RICHTER, AND J. B. COPE. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:334-346.

JONES, G., AND J. RYDELL. 2003. Attack and defense: interactions between echolocating bats and their insect prey. Pages 301-345 in Ecology of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Plenum Press Corpopration, New York.

KUNZ, T. H. 1971. Ecology of the cave bat, Myotis velifer, in south-central Kansas and northwestern Oklahoma. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

KUNZ, T. H. 1973. Population studies of the cave bat (Myotis velifer): reproduction, growth, and development. Occasional Papers, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 15:1-43.

KUNZ, T. H. 1974. Ecology of a temperate insectivorous bat Myotis velifer. Ecology 55:693-711.

KUNZ, T. H. 1988. Methods of assessing the availability of prey to insectivorous bats. Pages 191-210 in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

KUNZ, T. H., AND L. F. LUMSDEN. 2003. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages 3-89 in Bat ecology (T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, editors). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

KURTA, A., AND M. S. FUJITA. 1988. Design and interpretation of laboratory thermoregulation studies. Pages 333-352 in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

KURTA, A., AND J. O. WHITAKER, JR. 1998. Diet of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the northern edge of its range. American Midland Naturalist 140:280-286.

MCNAB, B. K 1969. The economics of temperature regulation in Neotropical bats. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 31:227-268.

PEARSON, O. P., M. R KoFoRD, AND A. K. PEARSON. 1952. Reproduction of the lump-nosed bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Journal of Mammalogy 33:273-320.

RACEY, P. A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 in Ecology of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Plenum Press Corporation, New York.

RACEY, P. A., AND S. M. SWIFT. 1981. Variations in gestation length in a colony of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) from year to year. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 61:123-129.

REID, F. A. 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York.

RYDELL, J. 1989. Occurrence of bats in northernmost Sweden (65[degrees]N) and their feeding ecology in summer. Journal of Zoology (London) 227:517-529.

SHIEL, C., P. L. DUVERGE, P. SMIDDY, AND J. FAIRLEY. 1998. Analysis of the diet of Leisler's bat (Nyctalus leisleri) in Ireland with some comparative analyses from England and Germany. Journal of Zoology (London) 246:417-425.

SHIEL, C., C. MCANEY, C. SULLIVAN, AND J. FAIRLEY. 1997. Identification of arthropod fragments in bat droppings. Occasional Publications, The Mammal Society 17:1-56.

SPARKS, D. W., AND J. R. CHOATE. 2000. Distribution, natural history, conservation status, and biogeography of bats in Kansas. Pages 173-228 in Reflections of a naturalist: papers honoring Professor Eugene D. Fleharry (J. R Choate, editor). Fort Hays Studies, Special Issue 1:1-241.

SPEAKMAN, J. R, AND D. W. THOMAS. 2003. Physiological ecology and energetics of bats. Pages 430-492 in Bat ecology (T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, editors). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

STONES, R. C. 1965. Laboratory care of little brown bats at thermal neutrality. Journal of Mammalogy 46: 681-682.

STUDIER, E. H., AND M. J. O'FARRELL. 1972. Biology of Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)--I. Thermoregulation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 41:567-595.

STUDIER, E. H., AND M. J. O'FARRELL. 1976. Biology of Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)--metabolism, heart rate, breathing rate, evaporative water loss and general energetics. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 54: 423-432.

TRUNE, D. R., AND C. N. SLOBODCHIKOFF. 1976. Social effects of roosting on the metabolism of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). Journal of Mammalogy 57: 656-663.

TWENTE, J. W., JR. 1955. Some aspects of habitat selection and other behavior of cavern-dwelling bats. Ecology 36:706-732.

WANG, G. H. 1924. The changes in the amount of daily food-intake of the albino rat during pregnancy and lactation. American Journal of Physiology 71:736-741.

WHITAKER, J. O., JR. 1988. Food habits analysis of insectivorous bats. Pages 171-190 in Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (T. H. Kunz, editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

ZAHN, A. 1999. Reproductive success, colony size and roost temperature in attic-dwelling bat Myotis myotis. Journal of Zoology (London) 247:275-280.

ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Fourth Edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

SHAUNA R. MARQUARDT * AND JERRY R. CHOATE

Missouri Department of Conservation, 6700 West Route I, Columbia, MO 65203 (SRM) Department of Biological Sciences, Sternberg Museum of Natural History, Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS 67601 (JRC)

* Correspondent. shauna.marquardt@mdc.mo.gov
TABLE 1--Mean ((+ or -) SD), high, and low temperatures ([degrees]C)
for each week that samples of guano of Myotis velifer were collected
in south-central Kansas; n = number of temperatures used in
calculations.
 Temperature at roosting surface

Site Week Mean (+ or -) SD (n) High Low

Bergner 31 May 7 June 25.85 (+ or -) 3.26 (168) 34.01 20.18
 Barn 7-14June 29.89 (+ or -) 1.99 (168) 34.01 25.95
 14-21 June 29.79 (+ or -) 2.75 (142) 36.13 24.40

Whitney 7-14 June 26.61 (+ or -) 2.63 (147) 33.59 23.24
 Barn 21-28 June 22.91 (+ or -) 3.91 (144) 32.34 14.47
 (lower) 4-12 July 27.96 (+ or -) 3.52 (206) 35.27 20.95

Whitney 21-28 June 27.33 (+ or -) 5.98 (144) 39.22 17.14
 Barn 4-12 July 31.31 (+ or -) 4.42 (206) 41.05 22.48
 (loft)

Gates 29 June-4 July 20.06 (+ or -) 1.80 (139) 22.09 15.62
 Cave 4-13 July 20.66 (+ or -) 0.73 (206) 22.09 19.04

Gentry 31 May-8 June 17.87 (+ or -) 1.15 (192) 21.71 15.62
 Cave 8-15 June 19.98 (+ or -) 0.86 (168) 22.48 18.66
 15-22 June 20.42 (+ or -) 0.66 (94) 22.09 19.42
 22-29 June 20.33 (+ or -) 3.62 (168) 25.56 18.28
 29 June-4 July 21.02 (+ or -) 0.61 (144) 24.01 19.81
 4-12 July 21.83 (+ or -) 0.81 (207) 24.01 20.18

 Air temperature 1.5-1.8 m below roosting
 surface

Site Week Mean (+ or -) SD (n) High Low

Bergner 31 May 7 June 23.96 (+ or -) 3.46 (168) 32.76 17.14
 Barn 7-14June 28.44 (+ or -) 1.97 (168) 32.76 24.40
 14-21 June 28.15 (+ or -) 3.16 (142) 34.85 21.33

Whitney 7-14 June 26.18 (+ or -) 3.42 (147) 35.27 20.57
 Barn 21-28 June 22.58 (+ or -) 4.12 (144) 32.76 14.08
 (lower) 4-12 July 27.27 (+ or -) 3.69 (206) 34.85 20.18

Whitney 21-28 June -- -- --
 Barn 4-12 July 30.17 (+ or -) 4.30 (206) 40.13 22.09
 (loft)

Gates 29 June-4 July 18.08 (+ or -) 1.48 (139) 21.71 15.23
 Cave 4-13 July 18.43 (+ or -) 1.16 (206) 22.07 16.00

Gentry 31 May-8 June 16.88 (+ or -) 1.20 (192) 20.95 14.08
 Cave 8-15 June 18.94 (+ or -) 0.85 (168) 22.09 17.90
 15-22 June 19.38 (+ or -) 0.58 (94) 21.33 18.28
 22-29 June -- -- --
 29 June-4 July -- -- --
 4-12 July 21.02 (+ or -) 1.14 (207) 23.24 18.28

TABLE 2--Arthropod prey of female Myotis velifer in reproductive
condition summarized as percentage volume and relative frequency
(%) of total food items consumed. Number of samples of guano analyzed
is listed in parentheses following the name of each roost. Results of
the analysis of food habits by Kunz (1974) are included for
comparison.

 Bergner Barn (15) Whitney Barn (14)

Food item Percentage Relative Percentage Relative
 volume frequency volume frequency

Araneae <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5

 Coleoptera 38.3 34.8 44.1 36.2
 Alleculidae 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.6
 Carabidae 3.3 2.4 3.8 2.7
 Cerambycidae
 Chrysomelidae 4.6 5.0 4.3 2.5
 Curculionidae 2.2 2.1 1.4 2.17
 Dytiscidae <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
 Hydrophilidae
 Meloidae <0.1 <0.1
 Pentatomidae 0.1 0.5
 Scarabaeidae 18.7 9.6 24.5 12.8
 Unidentified 9.2 14.9 9.7 14.5

Diptera 13.4 12.0 11.5 17.4
 Calliphoridae
 Chironomidae
 Culicidae 2.7 2.5 0.4 1.9
 Dolichopodidae
 Muscidae
 Tipulidae <0.1 <0.1
 Unidentified 10.6 9.5 11.1 15.5

Ephemeroptera 0.1 0.2

 Hemiptera 13.3 27.0 12.9 19.7
 Cicadellidae 2.9 6.6 0.8 2.4
 Corixidae 1.9 3.7 1.6 2.4
 Fulgoridae
 Lygaeidae 7.4 13.9 10.0 14.0
 Miridae
 Nabidae
 Unidentified 1.0 2.4 0.5 0.9

Hymenoptera 4.9 4.3 3.3 2.5

Lepidoptera 25.5 18.8 24.4 19.4

Mesostigmata

Neuroptera <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1
 Chrysopidae
 Hemerobiidae <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1
 Myrmelontidae

Orthoptera 0.2 2.2

Siphonaptera
 Ischnopsyllidae

Trichoptera 2.0 0.8 2.0 1.3

Unknown 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.7

 Gates Cave (3) Gentry Cave (15)

Food item Percentage Relative Percentage Relative
 volume frequency volume frequency

Araneae <0.1 0.1

 Coleoptera 37.7 31.1 39.7 31.4
 Alleculidae 0.1 0.6
 Carabidae 2.6 1.9 4.0 1.7
 Cerambycidae
 Chrysomelidae 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.9
 Curculionidae 1.0 2.4 0.3 0.7
 Dytiscidae
 Hydrophilidae
 Meloidae
 Pentatomidae <0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1
 Scarabaeidae 16.7 10.7 18.6 11.1
 Unidentified 16.2 15.1 15.3 16.5

Diptera 21.5 25.7 11.0 12.2
 Calliphoridae
 Chironomidae
 Culicidae 0.6 1.9 1.8 1.0
 Dolichopodidae
 Muscidae
 Tipulidae
 Unidentified 20.9 23.8 9.2 11.2

Ephemeroptera 0.3 0.5

 Hemiptera 2.0 9.7 12.3 27.3
 Cicadellidae 0.2 2.9 3.8 9.1
 Corixidae 1.3 3.4 2.3 6.6
 Fulgoridae
 Lygaeidae 0.3 1.9 6.2 11.6
 Miridae
 Nabidae
 Unidentified 0.1 1.00

Hymenoptera 10.5 9.7 11.7 7.0

Lepidoptera 20.5 17.0 22.6 18.4

Mesostigmata

Neuroptera 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.9
 Chrysopidae 0.1 0.2
 Hemerobiidae 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.7
 Myrmelontidae

Orthoptera 0.8 2.9 0.1 0.2

Siphonaptera
 Ischnopsyllidae

Trichoptera 0.7 1.4

Unknown 5.7 2.4 1.3 1.1

 This study Kunz, 1974

 Average Average Average
Food item percentage relative percentage
 volume frequency volume

Araneae 0.10 0.2

 Coleoptera 40.0 33.4 37.4
 Alleculidae 0.2 0.7
 Carabidae 3.4 2.2 4.3
 Cerambycidae 0.5
 Chrysomelidae 2.8 2.3 0.5
 Curculionidae 1.20 1.8
 Dytiscidae <0.1 <0.1 1.0
 Hydrophilidae 1.0
 Meloidae 0 <0.1
 Pentatomidae 0.1 0.3
 Scarabaeidae 19.6 11.0 15.9
 Unidentified 12.6 15.3 14.0

Diptera 14.3 16.8 14.4
 Calliphoridae 0.5
 Chironomidae 4.8
 Culicidae 1.4 1.8
 Dolichopodidae 0.5
 Muscidae 1.4
 Tipulidae <0.1 <0.1 4.8
 Unidentified 12.9 15.0 2.4

Ephemeroptera 0.1 0.2

 Hemiptera 10.1 21.0 27.1
 Cicadellidae 1.9 5.2 17.4
 Corixidae 1.8 4.0 6.8
 Fulgoridae 0.5
 Lygaeidae 6.0 10.4
 Miridae 1.4
 Nabidae 0.5
 Unidentified 0.4 1.1 0.5

Hymenoptera 7.6 5.9

Lepidoptera 23.3 18.4 11.6

Mesostigmata 4.3

Neuroptera 0.5 0.5 3.9
 Chrysopidae <0.1 <0.1
 Hemerobiidae 0.5 0.5
 Myrmelontidae 3.9

Orthoptera 0.3 1.3 0.5

Siphonaptera 0.5
 Ischnopsyllidae 0.5

Trichoptera 1.2 0.9 1.0

Unknown 2.7 1.5
COPYRIGHT 2009 Southwestern Association of Naturalists
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Marquardt, Shauna R.; Choate, Jerry R.
Publication:Southwestern Naturalist
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 1, 2009
Words:5461
Previous Article:Trophic relationships of small nonnative fishes in a natural creek and several agricultural drains flowing into the Salton Sea, and their potential...
Next Article:Survival and movement of chicks of the least tern (Sterna antillarum) on an alkaline flat.
Topics:


Related Articles
Bats of the Wabash and Ohio River Basins of Southwestern Indiana.
Are bats in Indiana declining?
Current status of the evening bat, nycticeius humeralis, in Indiana.
Wintering populations of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the endangered Indiana myotis, myotis sodalis.
Bats of Wyandotte Cave, Crawford County Indiana.
Utilization of cave swallow nests by the cave Myotis, Myotis velifer, in central Texas.
Hibernation of the eastern pipistrelle, Perimyotis subflavus, in an abandoned mine in Vermillion County, Indiana, with some information on Myotis...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |