4.1 Article

Interindividual variations in fruit preferences of the yellow-shouldered bat Sturnira lilium (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in a cafeteria experiment

Journal

MAMMALIA
Volume 78, Issue 1, Pages 93-101

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/mammalia-2012-0103

Keywords

animal-plant interactions; cafeteria trials; food choice; frugivory; Phyllostomidae

Categories

Funding

  1. Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) [123569/2010-9]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp) [2006/00265-0]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) [1134644]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In studies on frugivory and seed dispersal, it is frequently assumed that individual frugivores of the same population behave as equivalents. However, there is growing evidence from dietary studies pointing out that, in many natural populations, individuals use different subsets of the total resource pool. As heterogeneity in foraging behavior and food selection may affect the outcome of the seed dispersal process, we tested whether yellow-shouldered bats Sturnira lilium (E. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, 1810), the key neotropical seed dispersers, show interindividual variations in fruit preferences. Thirty individuals were submitted to cafeteria trials in a flight tent, when they were offered fruits of Solanum variabile Mart. (Solanaceae) Cecropia pachystachya Trec. (Urticaceae), and Piper aduncum L. (Piperaceae), which belong to the favorite genera consumed by S. lilium. Although S. variabile had the highest consumption rates on average, there were variations among individuals in the fruits consumed in the second and third places. These findings, together with interindividual differences in foraging areas observed in the same population, may be interpreted as preliminary evidence of individual specialization. As a possible consequence, frugivorous bats of the same population, despite being all legitimate dispersers, may differ in their efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available