Search for: All records

Abstract In many group‐living animals, survival and reproductive success depend on the formation of long‐term social bonds, yet it remains largely unclear why particular pairs of groupmates form social bonds and not others. Can social bond formation be reliably predicted from each individual's immediately observable traits and behaviors at first encounter? Or is social bond formation hard to predict due to the impacts of shifting social preferences on social network dynamics? To begin to address these questions, we asked how well long‐term cooperative relationships among vampire bats were predicted by how they interacted during their first encounter as introduced strangers. In Study 1, we found that the first 6 h of observed interactions among unfamiliar bats co‐housed in small cages did not clearly predict the formation of allogrooming or food‐sharing relationships over the next 10 months. In Study 2, we found that biologger‐tracked first contacts during the first 4–24 h together in a flight cage did not strongly predict allogrooming rates over the next 4 months. These results corroborate past evidence that social bonding in vampire bats is not reducible to the individual traits or behaviors observed at first encounter. Put simply, first impressions are overshadowed by future social interactions. 

Social structure can emerge fromhierarchically embedded scales of movement, where movement at one scale is constrained within a larger scale (e.g. among branches, trees, forests). In most studies of animal social networks, some scales of movement are not observed, and the relative importance of the observed scales of movement is unclear. Here, we asked: how does individual variation in movement, at multiple nested spatial scales, influence each individual's social connectedness? Using existing data from common vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus), we created an agent-based model of how three nested scales of movement—among roosts, clusters and grooming partners—each influence a bat's grooming network centrality. In each of 10 simulations, virtual bats lacking social and spatial preferences moved at each scale at empirically derived rates that were either fixed or individually variable and either independent or correlated across scales. We found that numbers of partners groomed per bat were driven more by within-roost movements than by roost switching, highlighting that co-roosting networks do not fully capture bat social structure. Simulations revealed how individual variation in movement at nested spatial scales can cause false discovery and misidentification of preferred social relationships. Our model provides several insights into how nonsocial factors shape social networks. 

Blood-feeding (sanguivory) has evolved more than two dozen times among birds, fishes, insects, arachnids, molluscs, crustaceans, and annelids; however, among mammals, it is restricted to the vampire bats. Here, the authors revisit the question of how it evolved in that group. Evidence to date suggests that the ancestors of phyllostomids were insectivorous, and that carnivory, omnivory, and nectarivory evolved among phyllostomids after vampire bats diverged. Frugivory likely also evolved after vampire bats diverged, but the phylogeny is ambiguous on that point. However, vampire bats lack any genetic evidence of a frugivorous past, and the behavioural progression from frugivory to sanguivory is difficult to envision. Thus, the most parsimonious scenario is that sanguivory evolved in an insectivorous ancestor to vampire bats via ectoparasite-eating, wound-feeding, or some combination of the two—all feeding habits found among blood-feeding birds today. Comparing vampire bats with other sanguivores, the authors find several remarkable examples of convergence. Further, it was found that blood-feeding has been ca. 50 times more likely to evolve in a vertebrate lineage than in an invertebrate one. The authors hypothesize that this difference exists because vertebrates are more likely than invertebrates to have the biochemical necessities required to assimilate the components of vertebrate blood. 

Abstract Reciprocity and pseudo‐reciprocity are two important models for the evolution of cooperation and often considered alternative hypotheses. Reciprocity is typically defined as a scenario where help givencauseshelp received: cooperation is stabilized because each actor's cooperative investments are conditional on the cooperative returns from the receiver. Pseudo‐reciprocity is a scenario where helpenablesbyproduct returns: cooperation is inherently stable because the actor's cooperative investments yield byproduct returns from the receiver's self‐serving behavior. These models are strict alternatives only if reciprocity is defined by the restrictive assumption of zerofitness interdependence, meaning that the helper has no “stake” in the receiver's fitness. Reciprocity and interdependence are, however, not mutually exclusive when helping can increase both reciprocal help and byproduct returns. For instance, helping partners survive can simultaneously increase their willingness to reciprocate, their ability to reciprocate, and byproduct benefits of their existence. Interdependence can “pave the road” to reciprocal helping, and partners who reciprocate help can also become interdependent. However, larger cooperative investments can increase the need for responsiveness to partner returns. Therefore, most long‐term cooperative relationships involve both responsiveness and interdependence. Categorizing these relationships as “reciprocity” can be viewed as ignoring interdependence, but calling them ‘pseudo‐reciprocity’ is confusing because stability also comes from the cooperative investments being conditional on returns. Rather than conceptualizing cooperation intodiscrete categories, it is more insightful to imagine a coordinate system with responsiveness and interdependence ascontinuous dimensions. One can ask: To what degree is helping behavior responsive to the partner's behavior? And to what degree does the helper inherently benefit from the receiver's survival or reproduction? The amounts of responsiveness and interdependence will often be hard to estimate, but both are unlikely to be zero. Identifying their relative importance, and how that changes over time, would greatly clarify the nature of cooperative relationships. 

Abstract To forage efficiently, animals should selectively attend to and remember the cues of food that best predict future meals. One hypothesis is that animals with different foraging strategies should vary in their reliance on spatial versus feature cues. Specifically, animals that store food in dispersed caches or that feed on spatially stable food, such as fruits or flowers, should be relatively biased towards learning a meal’s location, whereas predators that hunt mobile prey should instead be relatively biased towards learning feature cues such as odor or sound. Several authors have predicted that nectar-feeding and fruit-feeding bats would rely relatively more on spatial cues, whereas closely related predatory bats would rely more on feature cues, yet no experiment has compared these two foraging strategies under the same conditions. To test this hypothesis, we compared learning in the frugivorous bat, Artibeus jamaicensis, and the predatory bat, Lophostoma silvicolum, which hunts katydids using acoustic cues. We trained bats to find food paired with a unique and novel odor, sound, and location. To assess which cues each bat had learned, we then dissociated these cues to create conflicting information. Rather than finding that the frugivore and predator clearly differ in their relative reliance on spatial versus feature cues, we found that both species used spatial cues over sounds or odors in subsequent foraging decisions. We interpret these results alongside past findings on how foraging animals use spatial cues versus feature cues, and explore why spatial cues may be fundamentally more rich, salient, or memorable. 

Spatial assortment can be both a cause and a consequence of cooperation. Proximity promotes cooperation when individuals preferentially help nearby partners, and conversely, cooperation drives proximity when individuals move towards more cooperative partners. However, these two causal directions are difficult to distinguish with observational data. Here, we experimentally test if forcing randomly selected pairs of equally familiar female common vampire bats ( Desmodus rotundus ) into close spatial proximity promotes the formation of enduring cooperative relationships. Over 114 days, we sampled 682 h of interactions among 21 females captured from three distant sites to track daily allogrooming rates over time. We compared these rates before, during and after a one-week period, during which we caged random triads of previously unfamiliar and unrelated vampire bats in proximity. After the week of proximity when all bats could again freely associate, the allogrooming rates of pairs forced into proximity increased more than those of the 126 control pairs. This work is the first to experimentally demonstrate the causal effect of repeated interactions on cooperative investments in vampire bats. Future work should determine the relative importance of mere association versus interactions (e.g. reciprocal allogrooming) in shaping social preferences. 

Rabies virus (RABV) transmitted by the common vampire bat ( Desmodus rotundus ) poses a threat to agricultural development and public health throughout the Neotropics. The ecology and evolution of rabies host–pathogen dynamics are influenced by two infection-induced behavioural changes. RABV-infected hosts often exhibit increased aggression which facilitates transmission, and rabies also leads to reduced activity and paralysis prior to death. Although several studies document rabies-induced behavioural changes in rodents and other dead-end hosts, surprisingly few studies have measured these changes in vampire bats, the key natural reservoir throughout Latin America. Taking advantage of an experiment designed to test an oral rabies vaccine in captive male vampire bats, we quantify for the first time, to our knowledge, how rabies affects allogrooming and aggressive behaviours in this species. Compared to non-rabid vampire bats, rabid individuals reduced their allogrooming prior to death, but we did not detect increases in aggression among bats. To put our results in context, we review what is known and what remains unclear about behavioural changes of rabid vampire bats (resumen en español, electronic supplementary material, S1).