ArticlePDF Available

Bats and insect pest control: a review

Authors:
  • Museo di storia naturale - Università di Firenze Sezione di zoologia «La Specola»

Abstract

Bat conservation is important not only for biodiversity but also because these flying mammals provide ecological services essential for humans. In particular, bats are very useful for the control of insect populations and specifically pests to agriculture. Their diet very often includes Lepidoptera, a large order with several species very harmful to many plants of great economic interest. The diet of some European species of bats (e.g. Rhinolophus spp., Hypsugo savi, Nyctalus leisleri, N. noctula, Barbastella barbastellus, Plecotus spp., Myotis brandtii, M. bechsteinii, Eptesicus serotinus) includes high percentages of moths (Lepidoptera) and many of them are pests of economic importance. In the United States and Thailand some studies have economically quantified bats’ value as pest control expecially against moths; in Europe these studies are still scarce and need to be promoted giving even more support to the protection of this outstanding order of mammals.
161
Vespertilio 17: 161–169, 2014
ISSN 1213-6123
Bats and insect pest control: a review
Marco riCCuCCi1 & Benedetto lanZa2
1 Gruppo Italiano Ricerca Chirotteri (GIRC), Pisa, Italy; marco.riccucci@gmail.com
2 Museo di Storia Naturale (Sezione Zoologica «La Specola») & Dipartimento di Biologia
Animale e Genetica, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Romana 17,
50125 Firenze, Italy; benedetto.lanza@libero.it
Abstract. Bats and insect pest control, an ecosystem service: a review. Bat conservation is important
not only for biodiversity but also because these ying mammals provide ecological services essential for
humans. In particular, bats are very useful for the control of insect populations and specically pests to
agriculture. Their diet very often includes Lepidoptera, a large order with several species very harmful
to many plants of great economic interest. The diet of some European species of bats (e.g. Rhinolo-
phus spp., Hypsugo savi, Nyctalus leisleri, N. noctula, Barbastella barbastellus, Plecotus spp., Myotis
brandtii, M. bechsteinii, Eptesicus serotinus) includes high percentages of moths (Lepidoptera) and
many of them are pests of economic importance. In the United States and Thailand some studies have
economically quantied bats’ value as pest control expecially against moths; in Europe these studies
are still scarce and need to be promoted giving even more support to the protection of this outstanding
order of mammals.
Agriculture, ecosystem services, Lepidoptera, moths, rice pests, Chilo suppressalis, olive fruit
y, Bactrocera oleae
Introduction
Only recently the protection of ecosystems and their conservation has been considered under
economic implications trying to understand how natural processes are important for the life and
survival of human beings. Those benets, measurable in economic terms, were called “nature’s
services” (Daily 1997, Daily et al. 2000); later and still today are referred to as “ecosystem ser-
vices” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and dened as benets to humankind derived
from resources and processes supplied by natural ecosystems.
The fundamental role of bats in maintaining ecosystems and their specic utility in the quality
of life were certainly underestimated until a few years ago. Bats are, with more than 1,300 species,
the second largest order of mammals (after rodents) and have colonized many different environ-
ments in all continents except Antarctica (Simmons 2005, Altringham 2011, Fenton & Simmons
2014). Over the past ten years, particular attention was paid to the economic value of bats in
agriculture and forestry, also the subject of several systematic reviews (Boyles et al. 2011, Kunz
et al., 2011, Ghanem & Voigt 2012, Boyles et al. 2013, Kasso & Balakrishnan 2013, Riccucci
& Lanza 2014) that highlight the still poor knowledge of the ecosystem services of insectivorous
bats in Europe. According to Boyles et al. (2011) in the United States the value of insectivorous
bats connected to the agricultural sector is about 22.9 billion USD a year (ranged from 3.7 to
53 billion USD per year). These estimates include the decreased costs of pesticide applications
reducing the development of pesticide resistance. Therefore there is an increasing interest of the
American farmers towards bats and how to attract them in their own land, even installing articial
roosts such as bat boxes (California Agriculture 1998, Kiser & Kiser 2002).
162
Most of the bat species (about 70%) are insectivorous, as the early Eocene bats (Habersetzer et
al. 1992, Simmons et al. 2008). In particular, some species from the fossil site of Messel (Germany)
used to prey on Lepidoptera (Richter 1993). Insect pests are a major problem in agriculture and
forestry (Hill 1983, 1987, 2008, Pollini 2013). Arthropods destroy between 18% and 26% of the
annual production of crops worldwide, for a value of over 470 billion USD (Culliney 2014). All
European species of Chiroptera are insectivorous (Dietz et al. 2009).
One of the most important ecosystem services of insectivorous bats is the control of herbivorous
arthropods including pest insects (Kunz et al. 2011, Ghanem & Voigt 2012). Among insects, moths
(order Lepidoptera) are major agricultural pests in many parts of the world (Zhang 1994, Hill
2008) and even in Europe, representing 91% of all lepidopterans (the other 9% are butteries).
Many of them are of great economic importance as pests of crops, horticultural plants or stored
products and woollens. Most moths are active at night or dusk, like bats.
Studies on the diets of European bats are here briey reviewed, mainly focusing on Lepidoptera
and on species of moths considered as agricultural pests (Hill 1983, 1987, 2008, Robinson et al.
2010, Pollini 2013). The aim is to highlight the economic benets of bats in insect pest control
and the urgent need to implement conservation actions as many species of bats are endangered
in several European countries (Temple & Terry 2007, Rondinini et al. 2013).
Moth-eating bats
Most of the studies on bats as biological pesticides refer to North America (Whitaker 1995, Cleve-
land et al. 2006, Federico et al. 2008, Boyles et al. 2011, Boyles et al. 2013). Foraging strategies
and diet of many species of European bats are relatively well-known (Beck 1995, Vaughan 1997,
Dietz et al. 2009, Lanza 2012).
The bat community in North America, as investigated by faecal analysis, consists of species
that eat mainly Lepidoptera (Ross 1967, Whitaker & Hamilton 1998). According to Ross (1967)
moths and beetles in North America, both representing very large groups, so numerous and
diverse in types and sizes that they are almost universally available as food for insectivorous
bats. Most African insectivorous bats also feed mainly on Lepidoptera and Coleoptera (Aldridge
& Rautenbach 1987).
A high number of insect species in the diets of bats have recently been identied using mole-
cular techniques on insect fragments in their faeces (Clare et al. 2009). Barnard (2011) provides
a useful appendix with extensive lists of prey species.
Signicant cases of pest control
It is of considerable interest the study carried out in Malta on the diet of Plecotus gaisleri. Borg
& Sammut (2002) mentioned this species as P. austriacus, but see Spitzenberger et al. (2006). The
examination of prey involved a bat present in a small room at the Museum of Natural History in
Mdina (Malta), where bat ate its preys. Bats use to eat the soft parts of their prey, the wings and the
hard ones are usually discarded. The discarded parts were collected and insect species identied
included several pest moths: Galleria mellonella – pest of apiculture; Autographa gamma – the
larvae feed on a wide variety of plants including pea (Pisum sativum), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris),
cabbage (Brassica oleracea); Chrysodeixis chalcites – prefers tomato, potato and pulses, but also
buds and fruits; Heliothis peltigera – prefers Solanaceae, Asteraceae and Fabaceae; Spodoptera
exigua – is a small black cutworm but voracious on different crops, such as sugar beet, corn,
163
Table 1. List of some Lepidoptera (moths) of agricultural interest found in the diet of European insectivorous
bats
bat species % of Lepidoptera family reference/s
lepidopteran species
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum 78% Jones 1990, Beck
Hepialus humuli Hepialidae 1995, Vaughan 1997,
Agrotis exclamationis Noctuidae Barnard 2011
Mesapamea secalis Noctuidae
Noctua comes Noctuidae
Noctua pronuba Noctuidae
Scoliopteryx libatrix Noctuidae
Rhinolophus hipposideros 19–89% Vaughan 1997, Beck
undetermined 1995, Lino et al. 2014
Rhinolophus euryale 69% Goiti et al. 2004, Goiti
undetermined et al. 2008
Rhinolophus mehelyi >90% Salsamendi et al.
undetermined 2008
Myotis bechsteinii 53–97% Vaughan 1997,
undetermined Noctuidae Barnard 2011
Myotis brandtii 91% Vaughan 1997,
undetermined Barnard 2011
Myotis nattereri 30% Beck 1995, Vaughan
undetermined 1997, Barnard 2011
Barbastella barbastellus 73–99% Jones 1990, Beck
undetermined 1995, Vaughan 1997
Eptesicus nillssonii 56% Beck 1995,
undetermined Vaughan 1997
Eptesicus serotinus 34%
undetermined Geometridae Beck 1995, Barnard
Noctuidae 2011
Pyralidae
Sphingidae
Tortricidae
Yponomeutidae
Zygaenidae
Odonestis pruni Lasiocampidae Mikula & Čmoková
Agrochola macilenta Noctuidae 2012: “more than
Agrotis ipsilon Noctuidae 80% of the consumed
Amphipoea oculea Noctuidae moths were important
Anarta myrtilli Noctuidae agricultural pests”
Autographa gamma Noctuidae
Brachionycha nubeculosa Noctuidae
Catocala electa Noctuidae
Catocala fulminea Noctuidae
Cucullia umbratica Noctuidae
Euplexia lucipara Noctuidae
Euxoa tritici Noctuidae
Lacanobia thalassina Noctuidae
Luperina nickerlii Noctuidae
Melanchra persicariae Noctuidae
Pachetra sagittigera Noctuidae
Tholera cespitis Noctuidae
Trachea atriplicis Noctuidae
164
Table 1. (continued)
bat species % of Lepidoptera family reference/s
lepidopteran species
Eptesicus serotinus Xestia castanea Noctuidae Mikula & Čmoková
(continued) Xestia c-nigrum Noctuidae 2012 (continued)
Mamestra brassicae Noctuidae
Noctua comes Noctuidae
Noctua fimbriata Noctuidae
Noctua pronuba Noctuidae
Stauropus fagi Notodontidae
Aglais urticae Nymphalidae
Vanessa cardui Nymphalidae
Pieris napi Pieridae
Coenonimpha arcania Satyridae
Cydia pomonella Tortricidae
Vespertilio murinus 49% Beck 1995, Barnard
undetermined 2011
Hypsugo savii 53%
undetermined Beck 1995
Nyctalus leisleri 67% Beck 1995, Vaughan
undetermined 1997, Barnard 2011
Nyctalus noctula 19–36% Noctuidae Beck 1995, Vaughan
undetermined Pyralidae 1997, Barnard 2011
Melanchra persicariae Noctuidae Poulton 1929
Mythimna pallens Noctuidae
Hepialus humuli Hepialidae
Triodia sylvina Hepialidae
Ourapteryx sambucaria Geometridae
Odontopera bidentata Geometridae
Ematurga atomaria Geometridae
Bupalus piniaria Geometridae
Biston betularia Geometridae
Pipistrellus kuhlii 38% Beck 1995
undetermined
Pipistrellus nathusii undetermined Beck 1995
Pipistrellus pipistrellus 33% Geometridae Beck 1995,
undetermined Noctuidae Barnard 2011
Pyralidae
Pipistrellus pygmaeus undetermined Barnard 2011,
Chilo suppressalis Pyralidae Flaquer 2011
Plecotus auritus 33% Arctiidae Beck 1985, Vaughan
undetermined Geometridae 1997, Barnard 2011
Hepialidae
Notodontidae
Nymphalidae
Pyralidae
Sphingidae
Thyatiridae
Abrostola triplasia Noctuidae Robinson 1990
Agrotis exclamationis Noctuidae
Amphipyra tragopoginis Noctuidae
Anitype chi Noctuidae
Apamea crenata Noctuidae
165
bat species % of Lepidoptera family reference/s
lepidopteran species
Plecotus auritus (continued) Apamea monoglypha Noctuidae Robinson 1990
Apamea sordens Noctuidae (continued)
Autographa gamma Noctuidae
Autographa jota Noctuidae
Autographa pulchrina Noctuidae
Caradrina morpheus Noctuidae
Cucullia umbratica Noctuidae
Diachrysia chrysitis Noctuidae
Lacanobia oleracea Noctuidae
Lacanobia thalassina Noctuidae
Mamestra brassicae Noctuidae
Mesapamea secalis Noctuidae
Mesoligia literosa Noctuidae
Mythimna impura Noctuidae
Naenia typica Noctuidae
Noctua comes Noctuidae
Noctua mbriata Noctuidae
Noctua janthina Noctuidae
Noctua pronuba Noctuidae
Oligia strigilis Noctuidae
Phlogophora meticulosa Noctuidae
Rhyacia simulans Noctuidae
Rusina ferruginea Noctuidae
Scoliopteryx libatrix Noctuidae
Xestia xanthographa Noctuidae
Deilephila elpenor Sphingidae
Hepialus humuli Hepialidae
Hepialus sylvina Hepialidae
Nola cucullatella Nolidae
Apamea monoglypha Noctuidae Buckhurst 1930
Noctua pronuba Noctuidae
Noctua comes Noctuidae
Mamestra brassicae Noctuidae
Mesapamea secalis Noctuidae
Agrotis nigricans Noctuidae
Agrotis exclamationis Noctuidae
Leucania conigera Noctuidae
Melanchra persicariae Noctuidae
Spilosoma lubricipeda Arctiida Poulton 1929
Noctua spp. Noctuidae
Plusia sp. Noctuidae
Autographa gamma Noctuidae
Triphosa dubitata Geometridae
Scoliopteryx libatrix Noctuidae
Orthosia sp. Noctuidae
Xylena exsoleta Noctuidae
Eumorpha satellitia Noctuidae
Plecotus austriacus 90% Arctiidae Beck 1995, Barnard
undetermined Drepanidae 2011
Endromidae
Geometridae
Lasiocampidae
Lymantriidae
Noctuidae
166
Table 1. (continued)
bat species % of Lepidoptera families reference/s
lepidopteran species
Plecotus austriacus Notodontidae Beck 1995, Barnard
(continued) Sphingidae 2011 (continued)
Tetheidae
Thiatiridae
Tortricidae
Plecotus gaisleri see text Borg & Sammut 2002
Tadarida teniotis 65–88% Whitaker et al. 1994,
undetermined Rydell & Arlettaz 1994
tomato, green bean, tobacco, grapes; Spodoptera littoralis – among host plants there are cotton,
horticultural crops (Solanaceae), corn; Noctua pronubacauses fatal damage to many plants:
carrots, strawberries, lettuce, tomato, potato, spinach; Agrotis ipsilon infested plants: Swiss
chard, corn, vegetable crops; A. puta, A.segetum – pests of various wild and cultivated plants.
The rice crops have a very important place in human nutrition; this graminaceous plant of Asian
origin is the staple food for about half of the world’s population (Kiple & Ornelas 2000, Timmer
2010) and it is cultivated in almost all countries (FAO 2014). The world rice crop is attacked by
more than 800 species of insects and at least 20 can cause serious economic damages (Heinrichs
1994). In Asia, where more than 90% of the world’s rice is produced, the average loss of yield
due to pests is around 20% (Pathak & Khan 1994). In Thailand bats act as efcient biological
control of rice pests (Leelapaibul et al. 2005, Wanger et al. 2014).
Conclusions
Bats play a relevant action in the protection of economically important crops against lepidopteran
pests. Insects considered as pests, often concentrate in large quantities in cultivated landscapes,
have been found in the diet of several species of bats. To install articial roosts (bat boxes) can
be a real important way to protect bats and to be very useful to agriculture as well. In the Ebro
Delta (Spain), where there are some of the largest European rice paddies, soprano pipistrelle,
Pipistrellus pygmaeus, acts as efcient biological controller of one of the most devastating pest,
the rice striped borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). In this area several bat boxes
have been installed; they accommodate up to 4,500 bats and have greatly reduced the deleterious
impact of this pest on rice crops, minimizing the use of insecticides (Flaquer et al. 2011). In
France 24 samples were analyzed from droppings collected under articial lodgings (bat boxes)
on the edge of an olive orchard (sampling in September and October during the y ight period).
Four PCR tests were performed and the results show that six samples of bat droppings are po-
sitive showing an adult predation of the olive fruit y, Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae),
by Pipistrellus kuhlii (Ricard et al. 2008). The less pesticides used on crops the less we take in
when we eat. Bats are among the best friends to organic farmers. They play a role in pest control
and attracting bats to farms can make a signicant difference to farmers who want to use natural
biological insect control, rather than rely upon chemicals that may threaten our environmental
and personal health.
Table 1 shows Lepidoptera species (mostly moths) found in the diets of European bats. Only
species in the diet of a specic bat species are mentioned. About 80 species of moths are listed,
167
found in the diet of 22 species of bats. Lepidoptera make up a substantial part of the diet for Rhi-
nolophus spp., Myotis brandtii, M. bechsteinii, Nyctalus leisleri, N. noctula, Eptesicus serotinus,
Hypsugo savii, Barbastella barbastellus, and Plecotus spp. Among the eaten moths Agrotis excla-
mationis, A. ipsilon, A. segetum, Autographa gamma, Chilo suppressalis, Chrysodeixis chalcites,
Cydia pomonella, Galleria mellonella, Heliothis peltigera, Hepialus humuli, Mamestra brassicae,
Naenia typica, Noctua mbriata, N. pronuba, Odonestis pruni, Phlogophora meticulosa, Spodo-
ptera exigua, S. littoralis, Xestia c-nigrum are signicant agricultural pests. Whenever possible
Latin names were updated according to the current taxonomy.
References
aldridGe H. d. J. n. & rauTenbacH I. L., 1987: Morphology, echolocation and resource partitioning in
insectivorous bats. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56: 763–778.
alTrinGHaM J. D., 2011: Bats. From Evolution to Conservation. Second Edition. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 352 pp.
barnard S. (ed.), 2011: Bats in Captivity. Volume 3: Diet and Feeding – Environment and Housing. Logos
Press, Washington, D.C., 420 pp.
becK A., 1995: Fecal analysis of European bat species. Myotis, 32–33: 109–119.
borG J. J. & saMMuT P. M., 2002: Notes on the diet of a grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus (Fischer, 1829)
from Mdina, Malta (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Central Mediterranean Naturalist, 3: 171–172.
boyles J. G., cryan p. M., MccracKen G. F. & KunZ T. H., 2011: Economic importance of bats in agricul-
ture. Science, 332: 41–42.
boyles J. G., sole c. l., crya n p. M. & MccracKen G. F., 2013: On estimating the economic value of
insectivorous bats: prospects and priorities for biologists. Pp.: 501–515. In: adaMs R. A. & pedersen S.
C. (eds.): Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer, New York, 547 pp.
bucKHursT A. S., 1930: Moths destroyed by a long eared bat. Entomologist, 63: 238.
California Agriculture, 1998: Bats can pack a punch in pest control. California Agriculture, 52: 6–7.
clare e. l., Fraser e. e., braid H. e., FenTon M. b. & HeberT P. D. N., 2009: Species on the menu of
a generalist predator, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis): using a molecular approach to detect ar-
thropod prey. Molecular Ecology, 18: 2532–2542.
cleveland c. J., FranK J. d., Federico p., GoMeZ i., HallaM T. G., Horn J., lopeZ J., MccracKen G. F. ,
Medellin r. a., Moreno-valdeZ a., sansone c., WesTbrooK J. K. & KunZ T. H., 2006: Economic
value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 4: 238–243.
culliney T. W., 2014: Crop losses to arthropods. Pp.: 201–226. In: piMenTel D. & pesHin R. (eds.): Integrated
Pest Management. Pesticide Problems. Volume 3. Springer, New York, xxi+474 pp.
daily G. C. (ed.), 1997: Natures Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington, D.C., 392 pp.
daily G. c., söderQvisT T., aniyar s., arroW K., dasGupTa p., eHrlicH p. r., FolKe c., Jansson a., Jansson
b., KauTsKy n., levin s., lubcHenco J., Mäler K. G., siMpson d., sTarreTT d., TilMan d. & WalKer
B., 2000: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science, 289: 395–396.
dieTZ c., nill d. & von Helversen O., 2009: Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. A&C Black
Publishers Ltd., London, 400 pp.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization], 2014: FAOSTAT 2012. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
Federico p., HallaM T. G., MccracKen G. F. , purucKer s. T., GranT W. e., correa sandoval a. n.,
WesTbrooK J. K., Medellin r. a., cleveland c. J., sansone c. G., lopeZ J. d. Jr., beTKe M., Moreno-
valdeZ a. & KunZ T. H., 2008: Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) as insect pest regulators
in transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Ecological Applications, 18: 826–837.
168
FenTon M. b. & siMMons N. B., 2014: Bats. A World of Science and Mystery. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 240 pp.
FlaQuer c., Guerrieri e., MonTi M., raFols r., Ferrer x., GisberT d., Torre i., puiG-MonTserraT i. & ar-
riZabalaGa A., 2011: Bats and pest control in rice paddy landscapes of Southern Europe. Pp.: 24–25. In:
HuTson A. M. & lina P. H. C. (eds.): XII European Bat Research Symposium. Programme. Abstracts.
List of Participants. Gamtos tyrimu centras, Vilnius, 100 pp.
GHaneM s. J. & voiGT C. C., 2012: Increasing awareness of ecosystem services provided by bats. Advances
in the Study of Behavior, 44: 279–302.
GoiTi u., aiHarTZa J. r. & Garin I., 2004: Diet and prey selection in the Mediterranean horseshoe bat Rhinolo-
phus euryale (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae) during the pre-breeding season. Mammalia, 68: 397–402.
GoiTi u., Garin i., alMenar d., salsaMendi e. & aiHarTZa J. R., 2008: Foraging by Mediterranean horseshoe
bats (Rhinolophus euryale) in relation to prey distribution and edge habitat. Journal of Mammalogy, 89:
493–502.
HaberseTZer J., ricHTer G. & sTorcH G., 1992: Bats: already highly specialized insect predators. Pp.:
179–191. In: scHaal S. & ZieGler W. (eds.), 1992: Messel. An Insight into the History of Life and of the
Earth. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 340 pp.
HeinricHs E. A. (ed.), 1994: Biology and Management of Rice Insects. Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi,
779 pp.
Hill D. S., 1983: Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and Their Control. Second Edition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 746 pp.
Hill D. S., 1987: Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and their Control. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 659 pp.
Hill D. S., 2008: Pests of Crops in Warmer Climates and Their Control. Springer Science & Business
Media, B.V., New York, 704 pp.
Jones G., 1990: Prey selection by the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum): optimal foraging
by echolocation? Journal of Animal Ecology, 59: 587–602.
Kasso M. & balaKrisHnan M., 2013: Ecological and economic importance of bats (order Chiroptera).
International Scholarly Research Notices Biodiversity, 2013(187415): 1–9.
Kiple K. F. & ornelas K. C. (eds.), 2000: The Cambridge World History of Food. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2153 pp.
Kiser M. & Kiser S., 2002: Bat Houses for Integrated Pest Management Benets for Bats and Organic
Farmers: Phase I. Final Report. Bat Conservation International Austin, Tx., Submitted To: Organic Farm-
ing Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, Ca., 12 pp. URL: http://cascadiaresearch.org/bats/tesc/bathouses.
integrated-pest.bci.pdf
KunZ T. H., braun de TorreZ e., bauer d., lobova T. & FleMinG T. H., 2011: Ecosystem services provided
by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223: 1–38.
lanZa B., 2012: Mammalia V, Chiroptera. Fauna dItalia. Vol. 46. Edizioni Calderini, Milano,
xiii+786 pp.
leelapaibul W., buMrunGsri s. & paTTanaWiboon A., 2005: Diet of wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat (Tadarida
plicata Buchannan, 1800) in central Thailand: insectivorous bats potentially act as biological pest control
agents. Acta Chiropterologica, 7: 111–119.
lino a., Fonseca c., GoiTi u. & pereira M. J. R., 2014: Prey selection by Rhinolophus hipposideros (Chi-
roptera, Rhinolophidae) in a modied forest in Southwest Europe. Acta Chiropterologica, 16: 75–83.
MiKula p. & čMoKová A., 2012: Lepidopterans in the summer diet of Eptesicus serotinus in Central Bohe-
mia. Vespertilio, 16: 197–201.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington, D.C., 155 pp.
paTHaK M. d. & KHan Z. R., 1994: Insect Pest of Rice. International Rice Research Institute & International
Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Manila, 89 pp.
169
pollini A., 2013: Entomologia Applicata. Il Sole 24 Ore Edagricole, Bologna, 1863 pp.
poulTon E. B., 1929: British insectivorous bats and their prey. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 99: 277–303.
ricard J.-M., Jay M., Garcin a. & Mandrin J.-F., 2008: Mesure de la prédation des ravageurs par des
auxiliaires vertébrés et invertébrés: Développement d’un outil biomoléculaire. Infos-Cti, 241(Mai
2008): 15–19 (5).
ricHTer G., 1993: Proof of feeding specialism in Messel bats? Kaupia, 3: 107–112.
riccucci M. & lanZa B., 2014: Importanza dei Chirotteri per l’agricoltura e la selvicoltura. I Georgofili Atti
dellAccademia dei Georgofili, 40 pp.
robinson M. F., 1990: Prey selection by the brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). Myotis, 28: 5–18.
robinson G. s., acKery p. r., KiTcHinG i. J., beccaloni G. W. & HernándeZ L. M., 2010: HOSTS – A Da-
tabase of the Worlds Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum, London. http://www.nhm.
ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/hostplants/
rondinini c., baTTisToni a., peronace v., TeoFili C. (eds.), 2013: Lista Rossa IUCN dei Vertebrati Italia-
ni. Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Roma,
54 pp.
ross A., 1967: Ecological aspects of the food habits of insectivorous bats. Proceedings of the Western
Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, 1(4): 205–263.
rydell J. & arleTTaZ R., 1994: Low-frequency echolocation enables the bat Tadarida teniotis to feed
on tympanate insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 257:
175–178.
salsaMendi e., Garin i., alMenar d., GoiTi u., napal M. & aiHarTZa J., 2008: Diet and prey selection in
Mehelyi’s horseshoe bat Rhinolophus mehelyi (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae) in the southwestern Iberian
Peninsula. Acta Chiropterologica, 10: 279–286.
siMMons N. B., 2005: Order Chiroptera. Pp.: 312–529. In: Wilson D. E. & reeder D.A. M. (eds.): Mammal
Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition. The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, Baltimore, i–xxxviii+1–744 pp.
siMMons n. b., seyMour K. l., HaberseTZer J. & Gunnell G. F., 2008: Primitive early Eocene bat from
Wyoming and the evolution of ight and echolocation. Nature, 451: 818–821.
spiZenberGer F., sTrelKov p. p., WinKler H. & HarinG E., 2006: A preliminary revision of the genus Ple-
cotus (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) based on genetic and morphological results. Zoologica Scripta, 35:
187–230.
TeMple H. J. & Terry A. (eds.), 2007: The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Ofce for Ofcial
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, viii+48 pp.
TiMMer C. P., 2010: The Changing Role of Rice in Asias Food Security. ADB Sustainable Development
Working Paper Series. Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, 19 pp.
vauGHan N., 1997: The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mammal Review, 27: 77–94.
WanGer T. c., darras K., buMrunGsri s., TscHarnTKe T. & Klein A. M., 2014: Bat pest control contributes
to food security in Thailand. Biological Conservation, 171: 220–223.
WHiTaKer J. O., 1995: Food of the big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus from maternity colonies inIndiana and
Illinois. American Midland Naturalist, 134: 346–360.
WHiTaKer J. o., sHalMon b. & KunZ T. H., 1994: Food and Feeding-Habits of Insectivorous Bats from
Israel. Zeitschrift Fur Säugetierkunde, 59: 74–81.
WHiTaKer J. o. & HaMilTon W. J. Jr., 1998: Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, 583 pp.
ZHanG B. C., 1994: Index of Economically Important Lepidoptera. CAB Iinternational, Wallingford,
599 pp.
received on 11 October 2014
... Their ability to act as vectors to crops or animals is very much a product of how landscapes are managed and the increasing reliance of bats on agricultural landscapes for foraging as natural habitats continue to be lost. Whilst bats contribute millions of dollars annually through pest control and pollination services (Boyles et al. 2011;Riccucci and Lanza 2014), exposure to fungi whilst foraging has a potential downside to the ecosystem services bats provide, especially as concurrent exposure to pesticides may alter susceptibility to various pathogens. Managing such a balance is challenging but involves ensuring that bats have adequate access to natural areas to reduce the exchange between natural and agricultural areas (and stable cave environments, which may host fungal populations over extended periods). ...
Article
Full-text available
Bats (Chiroptera), the second largest group of mammals, are known for their unique immune system and their ability to act as vectors for various zoonoses. Bats also act as important carriers of fungi, which include plant, animal, and human pathogens. Their roosting areas, foraging behaviors, and even migration routes make bats ideal vectors for fungi. We isolated 75 culturable fungal species from bats in Yunnan Province, China, with 36 species representing known pathogens of plants, animals, and humans, while 39 species are non-pathogenic fungi. Among these species, 77% (58 species) belonged to Ascomycota, 9% (seven species) belonged to Basidiomycota, and 13% (10 species) belonged to Mucoromycota. Even though several taxonomic studies on fungi associated with bats have been published, studies exploring the role of bats as fungal vectors are lacking. This study discusses the fungi host-specific traits and pathogenicity and the impact and ecological significance of bats as fungal vectors.
... Why this pattern emerges in just the males remains to be clarified. This species has a consistent diet across various locations in Europe, with the largest proportion always consisting of Lepidoptera and the remainder primarily composed of Diptera with smaller proportions of other groups (Borg & Sammut, 2002;Feldman et al., 2000;Mayer & von Helverson, 2001;Razgour, 2012;Razgour et al., 2011;Riccucci & Lanza, 2018). The high proportion of moths varies seasonally and across regions with data from Central Europe supporting relatively less consumption of Lepidoptera when compared to populations from Switzerland and Turkey. ...
Article
Full-text available
Chiroptera is the only mammalian order that has adapted to active flight, offering a unique platform to study ecomorphological adaptations. While bats exhibit a diverse diet, the focus of this study is on insectivorous bats, specifically four species: Myotis daubentonii, Nyctalus noctula, Plecotus austriacus and Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. It is important to note that despite sharing an insectivorous diet, these species occupy different ecological niches, perform distinct feeding strategies and explore varied habitats to capture prey. Using 2‐D geometric morphometrics, we analysed a sample of mandibles to identify differences in size and shape among these species. We also investigated ecogeographical variation within their overlapping distribution across continental Europe. Significant differences in both mandibular size and shape were found among the four species. Sexual dimorphism influenced only the mandibular shape of R. ferrumequinum. A latitudinal gradient in mandibular size was found solely in N. noctula, while longitude significantly explained shape variation in M. daubentonii. These findings suggest that even within the ecological guild of insectivorous bats, there exists a diverse range of morphological adaptations that allow these species to occupy distinct ecological niches.
... Few studies have been conducted in crop systems in the Global South, neglecting the importance of predators as natural enemies of pests and the factors that affect biological control in countries with high biodiversity and food production [77]. Some predator groups, such as bats, are still poorly studied in experiments to measure the effect of bat diversity on biological control, although their importance as consumers of pests is widely recognized [78,79]. Finally, some of our results should be interpreted with caution because of the low number of studies and large variation in effect size (e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
Pesticides have well-documented negative consequences to control crop pests, and natural predators are alternatives and can provide an ecosystem service as biological control agents. However, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding whether such biological control can be a widely applicable solution, especially given ongoing climatic variation and climate change. Here, we performed a meta-analysis focused on field studies with natural predators to explore broadly whether and how predators might control pests and in turn increase yield. We also contrasted across studies pest suppression by a single and multiple predators and how climate influence biological control. Predators reduced pest populations by 73% on average, and increased crop yield by 25% on average. Surprisingly, the impact of predators did not depend on whether there were many or a single predator species. Precipitation seasonality was a key climatic influence on biological control: as seasonality increased, the impact of predators on pest populations increased. Taken together, the positive contribution of predators in controlling pests and increasing yield, and the consistency of such responses in the face of precipitation variability, suggest that biocontrol has the potential to be an important part of pest management and increasing food supplies as the planet precipitation patterns become increasingly variable.
... Bats (Order: Chiroptera) provide a variety of important ecosystem functions such as insect pest control, pollination, and seed dispersal (Ramírez-Francel et al., 2022). For example, regarding pest control, a single Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) can consume one thousand or more mosquito-sized insects in one hour (Tuttle et al., 2013;Riccucci & Lanza, 2014;Whitby et al., 2020). Bats also play a significant but understudied role in pollination and seed dispersal (Ramírez-Francel et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Bats are an essential part of many ecosystems. However, their natural habitats are in a steady state of decline in many areas. In an attempt to mitigate habitat loss and supplement roosting sites, artificial roosts known as bat houses have been installed in targeted areas. Many factors must be considered when creating an ideal bat house, such as colour, size, installation location, the material of construction, and overall design. Several studies have identified that weather conditions can also influence occupancy rates in bat houses. Staff, volunteers, and student interns at Beaverhill Bird Observatory (BBO) have been monitoring and studying bat house occupancy in the Beaverhill Natural Area (BNA) since 2016. Several peer reviewed studies have noted the importance of microclimatic and weather conditions as an influence on bat house occupancy. However, the specifics of what aspects of microclimatic and weather conditions were never identified. In this study, weather conditions, including average temperature during sampling and humidity were documented and compared to preferred bat roosting locations. Additionally, the proximity to water relating to bat house locations was considered part of the scope of this study. Interpretation of the data collected suggested that there was a low correlation between bat house occupancy, temperature, and humidity. When reviewing data related to bat house locations and proximity to water, the study revealed a strong correlation to bat house occupancy (R² = 62%).
... Like most insectivorous bats (Boyles et al. 2011), P. kuhlli have immense importance for public health as well as economic value, as they may provide important biological pest suppression services (Riccucci and Lanza 2014;Russo et al. 2018). In a recent study, P. kuhlii was found to be the most abundant species foraging above agricultural land (Kahnonitch et al. 2018), while Charbonnier et al. (2014) and Cohen et al. (2020) identified them as one of the more responsive species to the presence of a major pest. ...
... Among this group, 31 bat species have been discovered until now in Morocco [4][5][6][7]; this group is supposed to deserve a high priority in the national strategies of research and conservation, as bats have a great socioeconomic importance. Indeed, they constitute major agents of insect pest control [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and a source of infectious diseases [15][16][17][18]. In addition, bats are good indicators of environmental quality and climate change [19][20][21][22][23][24]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In Morocco, investigations of bats are limited and fragmentary. The majority of studies were done in northern provinces close to the Mediterranean Sea and focused on the geographical distribution of bats. With the aim of overcoming these gaps, we used diurnal caves visits, hand nets and mist nets, and acoustic surveys to make an inventory of the Atlantic littoral of Safi-Essaouira provinces, which is considered one of the most neglected regions in the country. In total, five caves and nine foraging habitats were surveyed from 2020 to 2022. Our surveys highlighted the distribution of eleven bat species belonging to five families, of which Rhinolophus blasii and Tadarida teniotis species were newly recorded in the study area. Three caves, namely, Sbaa Fam, Haouya, and Sidi Benkrara were newly discovered and hosted medium-sized colonies of five species. They were important for bats during the daytime, hibernation, and breeding. In foraging habitats, 2650 passes of 10 species were recorded. Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus kuhlii were the most active, followed by Miniopterus schreibersii and Eptesicus isabellinus, while Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Hipposideros tephrus, Rhinolophus mehelyi, T. teniotis, Myotis punicus, and R. blasii were less active. Olive groves were the most diverse habitat with 8 species, followed by Safi pinewood and degraded Argane forest with 4 species each and Sidi Abderrahmane lake with 3 species. The other habitats hosted only two species each. This paper is the first to highlight data on bats in the coastal areas of Morocco and North Africa. Our results contribute to improve knowledge of the annual cycle of these bats and fill the gaps related to their distribution in the coastal area of the Safi-Essaouira provinces.
... Conservation bats are important due to their crucial role in maintaining biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services such as pest management in agriculture, pollinators, and malaria control (Fill et al., 2022;Riccucci & Lanza, 2014). Effective conservation and rehabilitation of the programs are dependent on climate trends and the distribution ranges of species (Préau et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Fruit bats serve as crucial bioindicators, seed dispersers, pollinators, and contributors to food security within ecosystems. However, their population and distribution were threatened by climate change and anthropogenic pressures. Understanding the impacts of these pressures through mapping distribution and habitat suitability is crucial for identifying high-priority areas and implementing effective conservation and management plans. We predicted the distribution and extent of habitat suitability for Rousettus aegyptiacus and Epomophorus labiatus under climate change scenarios using average predictions from four different algorithms to produce an ensemble model. Seasonal precipitation, population index, land-use land cover, vegetation, and the mean temperature of the driest quarter majorly contributed to the predicted habitat suitability for both species. The current predicted sizes of suitable habitats for R. aegyptiacus and E. labiatus were varied, on average 60,271.4 and 85,176.1 km 2 , respectively. The change in species range size for R. aegyptiacus showed gains in suitable areas of 24.4% and 22.8% in 2050 and 2070, respectively. However, for E. labiatus, suitable areas decreased by 0.95% and 2% in 2050 and 2070, respectively. The range size change of suitable areas between 2050 and 2070 for R. aegyptiacus and E. labia-tus shows losses of 1.5% and 1.2%, respectively. The predicted maps indicate that the midlands and highlands of southern and eastern Ethiopia harbor highly suitable areas for both species. In contrast, the areas in the northern and central highlands are fragmented. The current model findings show that climate change and anthropogenic pressures have notable impacts on the geographic ranges of two species. Moreover, the predicted suitable habitats for both species are found both within and outside of their historical ranges, which has important implications for conservation efforts. Our ensemble predictions are vital for identifying high-priority areas for fruit bat species conservation efforts and management to mitigate climate change and anthropogenic pressures.
... Most bats consume at least some insects, and many bats are dependent on insects for all dietary needs. Bats are considered to fulfill a critical role as natural checks on insect populations (Ramírez-Fr ancel et al., 2022), and estimates of their monetary value (e.g., in lieu of pesticides) are immense (Riccucci & Lanza, 2014). As discussed in this issue by Paksuz (2022), a potential cost of insectivory is water loss, since insects have far lower water content than other food. ...
Article
This special issue of The Anatomical Record is inspired by and dedicated to Professor Kunwar P. Bhatnagar, whose lifelong interests in biology, and long career studying bats, inspired many and advanced our knowledge of the world's only flying mammals. The 15 articles included here represent a broad range of investigators, treading topics familiar to Prof. Bhatnagar, who was interested in seemingly every aspect of bat biology. Key topics include broad themes of bat development, sensory systems, and specializations related to flight and diet. These articles paint a complex picture of the fascinating adaptations of bats, such as rapid fore limb development, ear morphologies relating to echolocation, and other enhanced senses that allow bats to exploit niches in virtually every part of the world. In this introduction, we integrate and contextualize these articles within the broader story of bat ecomorphology, providing an overview of each of the key themes noted above. This special issue will serve as a springboard for future studies both in bat biology and in the broader world of mammalian comparative anatomy and ecomorphology.
Article
Bartonella is a bacterial genus that comprises arthropod-borne microorganisms. Several Bartonella isolates have been detected from bats worldwide, which are thought to be undescribed species. We aimed to test the presence of Bartonella spp. among bats from Colombia, and evaluate the genetic diversity of bat-associated Bartonella spp. through phylogenetic analyses. A total of 108 bat blood samples were collected from three bat species (Carollia perspicillata, Mormoops megalophylla, and Natalus tumidirostris) that inhabit the Macaregua cave. The Bartonella ssrA gene was targeted through real-time and end-point PCR; additionally, the gltA and rpoB genes were detected by end-point PCR. All obtained amplicons were purified and bidirectionally sequenced for phylogenetic analysis using a concatenated supermatrix and a supertree approaches. A detection frequency of 49.1% (53/108) for Bartonella spp. was evidenced among bat blood samples, of which 59.1% (26/44), 54.3% (19/35) and 27.6% (8/29) were identified in Carollia perspicillata, Natalus tumidirostris and Mormoops megalophylla respectively. A total of 35 ssrA, 5 gltA and 4 rpoB good-quality sequences were obtained which were used for phylogenetic analysis. All obtained bat sequences clustered together with sequences obtained from Neotropical bat species into two bat-restricted clades namely clade A and clade N. We detected the presence of Bartonella spp. that clustered within two different bat-associated Bartonella clades, giving the first data of the genetic diversity of these bacteria among bats from Colombia.
Article
Full-text available
Insect-eating bats play a crucial role in agriculture and public health by suppressing populations of agricultural pests and disease vectors. These ecosystem services promoted by insect-eating bats are essential in a world that seeks sustainability in agricultural production and the management of urban areas. Despite Brazil’s status as one of the largest agricultural producers globally, research using insect-eating bats for pest control is lacking. This review underscores the importance of filling this knowledge gap and provides guidelines for future research. Bats exhibit diverse feeding habits and consume significant quantities of insects, including agricultural pests. While studies in the USA and Europe have highlighted insect-eating bats’ role in reducing agricultural losses, research in Brazil is limited. Challenges include the need for more advanced diet analysis techniques, such as DNA metabarcoding, and understanding bat habitat use in agricultural and urban landscapes. Research on natural and artificial roosts’ effectiveness and population dynamics is also essential. Integrating bat conservation into agricultural sustainability requires investment in technological methods, valuation of ecosystem services, population monitoring, habitat use studies and environmental education. Financial incentives and collaboration between sectors are crucial for advancing research and implementing bat-friendly practices in agriculture, ultimately enhancing biodiversity conservation and production sustainability in Brazil.
Article
Full-text available
Bats are among the most economically important nondomesticated mammals in the world. They are well-known pollinators and seed dispersers, but crop pest suppression is probably the most valuable ecosystem service provided by bats. Scientific literature and popular media often include reports of crop pests in the diet of bats and anecdotal or extrapolated estimates of how many insects are eaten by bats. However, quantitative estimates of the ecosystem services provided by bats in agricultural systems are rare, and the few estimates that are available are limited to a single cotton-dominated system in Texas. Despite the tremendous value for conservation and economic security of such information, surprisingly few scientific efforts have been dedicated to quantifying the economic value of bats. Here, we outline the types of information needed to better quantify the value of bats in agricultural ecosystems. Because of the complexity of the ecosystems involved, creative experimental design and innovative new methods will help advance our knowledge in this area. Experiments involving bats in agricultural systems may be needed sooner than later, before population declines associated with white-nose syndrome and wind turbines potentially render them impossible. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York. All rights are reserved.
Article
Full-text available
Order Chiroptera is the second most diverse and abundant order of mammals with great physiological and ecological diversity. They play important ecological roles as prey and predator, arthropod suppression, seed dispersal, pollination, material and nutrient distribution, and recycle. They have great advantage and disadvantage in economic terms. The economic benefits obtained from bats include biological pest control, plant pollination, seed dispersal, guano mining, bush meat and medicine, aesthetic and bat watching tourism, and education and research. Even though bats are among gentle animals providing many positive ecological and economic benefits, few species have negative effects. They cause damage on human, livestock, agricultural crops, building, and infrastructure. They also cause airplane strike, disease transmission, and contamination, and bite humans during self-defense. Bat populations appear to be declining presumably in response to human induced environmental stresses like habitat destruction and fragmentation, disturbance to caves, depletion of food resources, overhunting for bush meat and persecution, increased use of pesticides, infectious disease, and wind energy turbine. As bats are among the most overlooked in spite of their economical and ecological importance, their conservation is mandatory.