SIRJ-BES Volume 1 Issue 5 (2014) ISSN 2348 - 5787

www.scrutinyjournals.com

Scrutiny International Research

Journal of Biological and
Environmental Science (SIRJ-BES)

Insect pest management by the horse shoe bats

(Rhinolophus species) in the forest ecosystem of Kalakad
Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India
Selva Ponmalar S1 and Juliet Vanitharani2
Bat Research Laboratory, Zoology Department and Research Centre,
Sarah Tucker College, Tirunelveli, India

Article history: Submitted 17 June 2014; Accepted 28 June 2014; Available online 14 July 2014

Abstract

Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), which is the home for many endemic, rare and
endangered species of plants and animals, is one of the priority hotspot for conservation. Insect pests, being the
most destructive agents affecting forest and shade trees are by far the most numerous animal life inhabiting the
forest. As the primary predators of nocturnal insects, bats play a significant role in all forested ecosystems. The
insect eating bats allocate considerable time and effort with different flight strategies to forage the available insect
prey . Among the insectivorous bats of the forest ecosystem, the species of Rhinolophus genus help to control
insect pest populations throughout its geographic range. The studies on faecal pellet analysis has proved their
control over the lepidopteran, coleopteran, dipteran, hymenopteran, homopteran, orthopteran, hemipteran
trichopteran and neuropteran group of insect pests that infects the forest trees of KMTR. The valuable pest
controlling service provided by the study species needs special protection through conservation measures.

Key words: Foraging, insect pests, KMTR, primary predators, pest controller

Corresponding author

Dr. Juliet Vanitharani,

Professor and Head,
Zoology Department and Research Centre,
Sarah Tucker College,
Tirunelveli - 7,
Tamilnadu, India

Introduction

Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), which is situated in the south

Western Ghats of India one among the 18 world biodiversity hotspots which is bound by
forests in west, North and South and by villages in the East. This is the only area of
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Western Ghats which has longest raining period of about 8 months. Insect pests are the
most destructive agents affect forest and shade trees (Grindal and Brigham, 1999; Douce et
al., 2002). They affect tree roots, stems, limbs, needles, leaves of healthy or weakened trees,
hardwoods etc. Insectivorous bats play a significant role of pest management in all forested
ecosystems (Barclay, 1985; Freeman, 1979; Fenton, 2003). Flight has enabled them to
exploit a variety of foraging niches inaccessible to other mammals. Undoubtedly, they are
the most gregarious and successful group of beneficial animals to the ecosystem and have
lured the attention of ethologists.

Among the forest insectivorous bats, the species of the Rhinolophus are rich in
number; play a crucial role thereby keeps the insect population under check. They forage
and feed insects throughout its geographic range. They roost in large numbers in caves,
underground tunnels and abandoned old buildings. These insectivorous bats have many
morphological adaptations that allow them to capture and handle prey in flight. Their
dietary adaptations are commonly reflected in the skull (feeding apparatus) and wing (flight
apparatus) morphology. Teeth and skull are the morphological indicators with food and the
relationship in dietary diversity (Neuweiler, 2001). To suit their diet preference they show
considerable diversity in wing morphology (Fenton, 1992) and flight style (Neuweiler,
1984). The present study focuses on the impact of rhinolophids as pest manager in the
forests of KMTR.

Materials and Methods

The field work was conducted between May 2011 and December 2013 in KMTR
(Latitude - 8.6833o N; Longitude - 77.3167o E; Elevation range 40 – 1800 m). Initially, the
study sites were surveyed to collect baseline data on bat species and abundance. The
distribution of the study species was confirmed by erecting mist nets, setting canopy, harp
nets and hand nets. Digital recording of mist netted bats was done for closer look on
morphological features. During day hours, the bat roost search was done in the abandoned
buildings, crevices and cracks, tunnels, caves etc. The bats roosted in these area were
collected using hand nets and mist nets to identify the species and their morphology.
Morphological measurements were taken by following the standard techniques (Bates and
Harrison, 1997). The bats were then released back in the place where they were caught. The
documented results were then analysed to determine the potential habitats and
ecomorphological features of rhinolophids, the horseshoe bats of KMTR.

Dietary habitat analysis of studied rhinolophids was done by faecal pellet analysis
and examination of culled parts beneath the feeding roost. The microphotographs were
taken to confirm the insect parts identification. Identifications were made upto the order
level with the help of authenticated literatures available on Indian insects (Nair, 1989;
Borror 1992). The percentage frequency of insects consumed during the study period were
calculated covering the four seasons (Post monsoon, Summer, Premonsoon and Winter)
applying the following formulae.

� �
� �= ×
� �

15
 Table No. 1a: Morphological measurements and body weight of available Rhinolophids of KMTR

S. No Name of the Sex No. of Status Body Fore Ear Tail Hind Head Tibia
Species individuals of bat weight arm (mm) (mm) foot to (mm)
(g) (mm) (mm) body
(mm)
1 Rhinolophus rouxii ♂ 14 Adult 12.03± 49.64± 13.44± 20.79± 5.49± 49.46± 23.82±
1.22 1.35 2.26 3.02 1.92 2.48 1.28

♀ 25 Adult 12.21± 49.95± 13.37± 22.86± 6.40± 50.56± 23.44±

1.51 1.46 2.46 2.23 1.61 2.10 1.38

2 Rhinolophus pusillus ♂ 6 Adult 4.67± 38.47± 15.95± 19.00± 6.32± 37.23± 14.72±
0.28 0.99 0.55 0.57 0.40 1.59 0.29

♀ 3 Adult 4.30± 38.07± 15.80± 19.00± 6.13± 37.27± 15.23±

0.20 0.90 0.66 0.66 0.25 1.26 0.72

3 Rhinolophus lepidus ♂ 5 Adult 5.26± 40.92± 12.58± 18.28± 5.64± 40.10± 16.10±
0.42 1.91 2.86 1.86 2.24 2.01 0.78

♀ 14 Adult 5.11± 38.92± 10.76± 17.62± 4.47± 40.23± 16. 40±

0.40 1.71 0.49 2.11 0.45 1.93 0.67

4 Rhinolophus ♂♀ 3 Adult 21.40± 57.43± 27.73± 37.87± 10.87± 62.73± 30.53±

beddomei 1.01 0.59 1.27 0.75 2.44 12.57 0.21
Value: Mean ± Standard deviation
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Results

Table 1a, b, c, d and Figure 1 shows the variation in the structural morphology of
the identified rhinolophid bat species. The diagrammatic view of predicted foraging habitat
of studied species is depicted in Figure 1. The faecal pellet analysis and the identified parts
from their dietary items helped to predict insect consumption up to order level. The
percentage frequency of insect consumption and the identified parts from their dietary items
are represented in Figure 3 a,b,c and d. The comparative studies of food consumption on
various seasons were pictured under Fig 4.

Table No. 1b: Morphological and aerodynamic parameters of Rhinolophids of KMTR

Morphological Name of the bat species

parameter Rhinolophus Rhinolophus Rhinolophus Rhinolophus
rouxii pusillus lepidus beddomei

Body mass M (Kg) 0.01±0.00 0.00±0.00 0.00±0.00 0.02±0.00

Wing span B (m) 0.31±0.01 0.23±0.01 0.23±0.02 0.39±0.07
Wing area S (m2) 7.39±0.74 14.78±4.07 13.08±4.72 15.92±4.09
Aspect ratio A 5.71±1.07 0.02±0.01 0.02±0.01 0.02±0.01
Wing loading Mg/S 2.06±0.38 3.56±1.68 4.19±2.03 13.73±3.61
Tip area ratio Ts 1.21±0.06 1.14±0.24 1.13±0.34 1.25±0.35
Tip length ratio Tl 0.73±0.04 0.73±0.06 0.71±0.07 0.77±0.19
Tip shape index I 1.55±0.33 2.35±1.65 2.65±2.26 1.77±0.25
Wing loading index 0.19±0.07 0.36±0.24 0.34±0.20 0.20±0.05
M⅔/S
Value: Mean ± Standard deviation

Figure No. 1: Schematic representation of foraging habitats of studied species

17
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Discussion

Bats (Chiroptera), are the major contributors to mammalian biodiversity, comprising

about 20% of mammalian species globally (Simmons, 2005). In tropical ecosystem the insect
eating bats fulfill key ecosystem services as control agents of arthropod populations (Kalka
et al., 2008; Williams-Guillén et al., 2008). The present study is focused on the impact of
identified horseshoe bats of KMTR (Rhinolophus rouxii, Rhinolophus pusillus, Rhinolophus
lepidus and Rhinolophus beddomei). These bats were captured from foraging area, roosting
caves and tunnels at Sengaltheri, Kodayar, Mundanthurai and Servalar hills.

Morphological features

All these horseshoe bats have leaf-like, horseshoe-shaped protuberances on their

noses. They emit echolocation calls through these structures, which may serve to focus the
sound. Their wings are broad, making their flight particularly agile. These Rhinolophids are
brown and grayish black in colour. Their forearm ranges from 37 – 58 mm, body mass from
4.4 – 22.5 g and head and body length (HB) from 36 – 72 mm.

Figure No. 2: Wing and skull morphology of Rhinolophids of KMTR

18
 Table No. 1c: Cranial measurements of studied Rhinolophids

Name of the bat species SIZE Cranial measurements (mm)

(log) GTL CBL CCL ZB BB PC M MSW PSW TH UC
Rhinolophus rouxii 7.3 21.71 19.15 18.34 11.17 10.29 3.12 14.73 2.7 8 6.8 3.1
Rhinolophus pusillus 6.5 17.44 15.56 14.24 8.22 8.02 2.45 10.93 2.2 7 5 3.1
Rhinolophus lepidus 6.7 17.17 15.04 14.1 8.28 7.86 2.5 10.63 2.3 7 5.2 1.9
Rhinolophus beddomei 7.8 27.44 23.86 23.45 13.48 11.86 2.72 18.93 3.1 9.6 8.7 3.5

Expansions of the abbreviations are given below:

SIZE : Sum of the natural logs of Condylo-canine length, Zygomatic breadth and Temporal height;
GTL : Greatest length of the skull; CBL : Condylobasal length; CCL : Condylo-canine length;
ZB : Zygomatic breadth; BB : Breadth of the braincase; PC : Postorbital constriction;
M : Mandible length; MSW : Minimum skull width; PSW : Posterior skull width;
TH : Temporal height ; UC : Upper canine
 Table No. 1d: Dental measurements of studied Rhinolophids of KMTR

Name of the Dental measurements (mm) Dental formula

bat species Upper jaw Lower jaw (i-incisors, c-canine,
p-premolar, m-molar)
PC PM1 PM3 CMn CMn M DD DT CPH CM Conl CC Con
cor
Rhinolophus 2.83 7 8.4 8.03 8.69 14.7 1.9 0.07 3.01 5.09 4.3 13.3 4 -2- 1 -2-4 123
rouxii i ---- c --- pm ------- m -------- =32
12- 1 -234 123
Rhinolophus 2.45 4.9 5.1 5.8 6.01 10.03 1.2 0.06 2.1 2.9 3.9 9.5 2.1 -2- 1 -2-4 123
pusillus i ---- c --- pm ------- m -------- =32
12- 1 -234 123

Rhinolophus 2.5 5.1 5.9 6.1 6.9 10.9 1.5 0.06 2.9 3.8 2.4 10.2 2.4 -2- 1 -2-4 123
lepidus i ---- c --- pm ------ m -------- =32
12- 1 -234 123

Rhinolophus 2.72 7.3 9.1 8.9 10.01 18.93 2.38 1.14 4.51 5.9 4.2 16.9 5.1 -2- 1 -2-4 123
beddomei i ---- c --- pm ------ m -------- =32
12- 1 -234 123

Expansions of the abbreviations are given below:

PC : Postorbital constriction; PM1 : Palatal width from M1 ; PM3 : Posterior palatal width;
CMn : Maxillary toothrow; CMn : Mandibular toothrow; CM : Condyle to lower molar toothrow;
DD : Dentary depth; DT : Dentary thickness; Concor : Condyle to coronoid process
Conl : Condyle length; CC : Condyle to canine; M : Mandible length; CPH : Coronoid process height;
Foraging and feeding strategy

A suite of morphological factors influences foraging behaviour in insectivorous bats,

including body mass and the size and shape of the skull, jaws and wings (Freeman, 1979).
Large bats with large jaws are capable of eating a wider range of prey sizes than small bats,
resulting in a broader feeding niche. When food resources are plentiful, such differences are
less apparent (Anthony and Kunz, 1977).

Differences in skull and dental morphology that correlate with dietary hardness are
found among insectivores (Freeman, 1979; Dumont, 1999). The differentiation of the teeth
and mandibular joint provide a guide to the type of diet that differ species of bats consume
as well as the general dietary preferences within genus (Neuweiler, 2001). The Rhinolophus
beddomei has wider palate than length. To consume large size prey they are adapted with
broader palate rather than longer. This structure presumably made them to prefer hard food
item like beetles, moth, caddish fly etc. The other study species R.rouxii, R.pusillus and
R.lepidus seem to have narrow palate as they feed on butterflies, bugs, wasps and small
moths, the soft prey items. This type of feeding behaviour correlated to the dental and skull
structures were confirmed by the earlier studies (Philips, 1980; Advani, 1981; Whitaker et
al., 1996; Bates and Harrison, 1997). The present study also confirms that the major dietary
consumption of these two species is Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. The other study species
R.lepidus and R.pusillus are soft eaters and their major feed items are dipterans and
hemipterans.

The large difference in physical properties (size, hardness, toughness) of food item
demands adaptations in cranial morphology and the performance of the feeding apparatus
(Freeman, 1979). The assessment of physical properties of food items thus offer tremendous
insights into the range of variation in cranial and mandibular adaptations, to suit food
utilization patterns among insectivores (Strait, 1993). Studies of mastication (Storch, 1968)
and analytical predictions of bite forces (Reduker, 1983) have also provided important bases
for the ecomorphological adaptations to prey selection. The exhibited inter specific variation
in bite force of the rhinolophids cause the species specific variation in preferred prey
selection. Extensive studies of Dumont, (1999); Aguirre et al. (2002) and Dumont, (2003) on
ecomorphological adaptations on food selection and trophic niche partitioning also
substantiate the results.

R.beddomei has higher coronoid process allowing for the attachment of well
developed jaw muscle which is essentially robust to counter the reaction forces while biting
hard prey like beetles. These types of feeding behaviour in R.beddomei were strongly
confirmed by Phillips (1980).

Bogdanowicz et al. (1998) said that the well developed coronoid process allows
increased leverage and accommodated large jaw muscle. Increase in the size of temporal
muscle can allow an animal to resist the increased stress of struggling, crush hard shelled
items and facilitate more extensive use of canines (Bates and Harrison, 1997; Whitaker et al.,
1999; Advani, 1981; Philips, 1980). But the other studied rhinolophids exhibit lesser
coronoid process with thinner jaws. This characteristic assumes that these rhinolophids
prefer soft food items like butterflies, grasshoppers, etc. Findings of Brosset (Brosset, 1962)
Phillips (Phillips, 1980) and Jones (Jones et al., 1994) also confirmed the rhinolophid feed
analysis results.
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Figure No. 3a: Percentage frequency of insect consumption and the sample
identified parts from the dietary items of Rhinolophus ruxii

22
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Figure No. 3b: Percentage frequency of insect consumption and the sample
identified parts from the dietary items of Rhinolophus pusillus

23
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Figure No. 3c: Percentage frequency of insect consumption and the sample
identified parts from the dietary items of Rhinolophus Lepidus

24
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Figure No. 3d: Percentage frequency of insect consumption and the sample
identified parts from the dietary items of Rhinolophus beddomei

25
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Next to feeding apparatus the flight mechanism in bats are associated with
partitioning of food resources among bats (Norberg and Rayner, 1987). Bats with different
wing designs, varied flight style and performance show considerable diversity in diet
preference (Neuweiler, 1984; Fenton, 1990). Body mass, wingspan and wing area are the
primary measures of wing design. From these parameters, wing loading and aspect ratio are
derived, which describe the size and shape of the wings respectively (Norberg and Rayner,
1987). Interaction between aspect ratio, wing loading and wing tip shape index affect flight
(Norberg and Rayner, 1987; Neuweiler, 1989; Habersetzer and Storch, 1989; Rayner et al.,
1989; Fenton, 1990). Manoeuverability and agility are the two factors that are strongly
influenced by flight adaptation. These two factors explain the ability of bats to change the
flight direction without loss of speed and with small turning radius.

Among the studied bat species, the R. beddomei has higher wing loading, lesser
manoeuverability and forage in open uncluttered habitat. R. rouxii has wing loading lesser
than R.beddomei and they forage in less cluttered habitat whereas the other two study
species R. lepidus and R. pusillus have very lesser wing loading, greater maneurability and
they exploit cluttered vegetation. They fly among foliage canopy catching insects among
branches. Although Rhinolophidae has short wing tips, slow flight and low manoeuvrablity
they can fly with same hovering often within clutter (Barrett-Hamilton, 1910; Wallin,
1969). The low wing loading and the short, cambered wings permit highly manoeuvrable
flight and the slow light turns, which are essential for insect hawking near vegetation.
These bats can also glean on resting insects.

Feeding impact of Rhinolophids in the forests of KMTR

The documented insect parts from the faecal pellet analysis shows the undigested
parts of wing fragments, body fragments, leg parts etc. of various pest insects of the forest.
The variation in the wing morphology is an indication to prove, bat species forage and
cover all the niches. Their diversity in ecomorphology and species specificity avoids
competition. A resource partition is possible through their diverse adaptations on wing
shape, body size, and echocall sensory cues (Kasso and Balakrishnan, 2013). Studies of
Jennings (Jennings et al., 2004) also say that bats choose species-specific types of food items
and can detect the same according to their flight ability.

Altogether 9 insect orders were identified from all the faecal samples examined.
Scales and body parts of moths (Lepidoptera F = 23 %) were the most dominated item in all
the faecal samples of all the rhinolophids. That is followed by Coleoptera (F = 22%) and
Diptera (F = 19%). Previous studies of Robinson and Stebbings (1993), on Eptesicus serotinus
forest bat of U K also shows that the scales of moth wings were very conspicuous in faeces.
In addition coleopteran and lepidopteran insects appear to be the second most important
insect orders in the diet of Indiana bats (Kurta and Whitaker, 1996). The present study also
shows that there is high frequency of lepidopteran and coleopteran fragments in the faeces
of all the four studied species. The major nocturnal pest for the flora of any ecosystem is the
caterpillers of moths (Whitaker, 1993). A single moth can lay upto 400-600 eggs.
Consumption of a single moth itself causes a cascade effect on forest pest management.

The second higher percentage of identified parts Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera

and Hemiptera. The larval forms of these representatives are the major pests in the forest
ecosystem. Almost all the coleopteran beetles are hardwood pests and they infest the trees
which cannot be even saved with insecticide treatments. Thereby, to limit beetle population,
26
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

the predation by bats on these insects in the forest ecosystem is very beneficial. In addition,
the caterpillars of these pests are defoliators or miners of succulent plant tissues. The larval
wood moths tunnel the heartwood of living trees resulting in timber degrade. The white
grubs, root-feeding larvae are among the most damaging pests of tall fescue pasture, and
turf grass in parts of the United States Australia, and New Zealand (Tashiro, 1987; Potter
and Braman, 1991)

The presently studied rhinolophids also consume a major group of dipteran which
includes the trill flies, mosquitoes, midges and variety of flies, leg dance flies, snipe flies,
hover flies, shore flies, blow flies, dung flies, bat flies etc. The larvae of these dipterans
produces various types of galls on stems, twigs, leaves, petioles, flowers, flower-stalks,
fruits, and pods, or living under the bark, in decaying wood and bark (Skuhrava et al., 1984).

Hymenopterans like sawflies, leaf cutting wasps, bees and ants, beetles and walking
sticks are some of the major defoliators that attack forest trees. Defoliation reduces
photosynthesis, interferes with transpiration and translocation within the tree which in turn
causes serious loss of tree growth and sometimes tree mortality (Douce et al., 2002)

Earlier studies have proved and indicated that these bat species can consume more
than 25% of their body mass of insects each night (Kunz 1988; Fenton 1990; Kasso and
Balakrishnan, 2013). They frequently selects nutrient-rich abdomen of insects while
discarding the wings, head, and appendages, which greatly increases feeding efficiency and
the quantity of insects consumed. In this way, pests are limited by natural ecosystems of
which bats play a potential role as pest manager.

Figure No. 4: Seasonal insect consumption rate of four Rhinolophus species

27
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

The comparative study on seasonal insect consumption rate shows that there is
variation in the dietary consumption rate. Seasonal dietary prey selection shows that there
is a seasonal trend among the major dietary components. The food availability is higher
during the summer time followed by post monsoon, premonsoon and winter. The most
dominent food component Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera shows that there is high
availability in summer than in winter. The other food components like hymenopterans are
more in premonsoon, homopterans are more in late winter, orthopterans, hemipterans,
trichopterans and neuropterans are more in postmonsoon period. Experiments and field
observations show that bats can discriminate among various habitats and items of food and
adjust their behaviour to utilize, more–or-less optimally to these said varying resources
(Barclay, 1985; Norberg, 1981). The wide range of food selection confirmed these bats
adaptations and ability to consume various foods in different seasons (Howes, 1974; Zinn
and Humphrey, 1981; Jones, 1990; Beck, 1995; Gloor et al., 1995, Taake, 1996, Rydell and
Peterson, 1998).

Conclusion

Forest insect outbreaks cause economic damage to forests which in turn affect the
wealth of the country. The present impact study shows that there is availability of certain
harmful insect pests throughout the year. The role of the studied rhinolophids is of great
importance in the forest ecosystem as pest manager. Among the insectivorous bats, the
species of Rhinolophus are richly and widely distributed in the forest ecosystem and are likely
to control insect pest populations throughout its geographic range. These species eats a
number of serious Polyphagus insect pest species of forest trees and thus has a promising
role in biological control. Their foraging and roosting areas like caves, tunnels, rock
crevices and canopy must be protected. Threats like roost disturbances, firing, deforestation
greatly affect their population. Roost protection is the major conservation measure to
protect these valuable species. The present study so far has evaluated the importance of
these species and their value of pest suppression. This research may thereby lead to improve
control measures. The bat conservation will not only control the pest population but also
replenish the forest ecosystem.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks and acknowledgement to Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Kalakad

Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tirunelveli, for granting permission to conduct the survey
and logistical advice. Thanks to Dr. Paul Bates, Dr. David Harrison and Dr. Nikky Thomas,
Harrison Institute, UK for their help in the identification of specimens. JV would like to
extend her grateful thanks to Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates for the financial support to the field work.

Reference

Alankar, S., Jain, R., Agarwal, R. K. and Ahirwar, D., 2008. Clinical trial of herbal drugs and
products in India: Past and current status and critical issues. Research Jounal of Pharmacy
and Technology, 1(2): 69-74.

Advani, R., 1981. Seasonal fluctuations in the feeding ecology of the Indian false vampire
Megaderma lyra lyra (Chiroptera: Megadermatidae) in Rajasthan. Zeits. Saug., 46 (2):90-
93

28
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Anthony, E.I.P. and Kunz, T.K., 1977. Feeding strategies of little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus in
Southern NewHampshire. Ecology, 58:775-786.

Aguirre, L.F., Herrel, A., Van Damme, R. and Matthyssen, E., 2002. Ecomorphological analysis
of trophic niche partitioning in a tropical savanna bat community. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
Biol. Sci., 269:1271 -1278.

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

Bates, P.J.J. and Harrison, D.L., 1997. Bats of the Indian subcontinent. Harrison Zool. Mus.
Pub., England.

Beck, A., 1995. Fecal analyses of european bat species. Myotis, 32-33: 109–119.

Borror, D., 1992. An Introduction to the study of insects.Harcourt Bace College Publishers,
USA.879-896.

Bogdanowicz, W., Kasper, S. and Owen, R.D., 1998. Phylogeny of plecotine bats: reevaluation of
morphological and chromosomal data. J. Mammalogy, 79: 78-90.

Brosset, A., 1962. La reproduction des Chiropteres de 1'ouest et du centre de ITnde. Mammalia,
26: 176-213.

Douce, G.K., Moorhead, D.J. and Bargeron, C.T., 2002. Forest Pest Control, The University of
Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Special Bulletin 16,
Revised January.

Dumont, E.R., 1999. The effect of food hardness on feeding behaviour in frugivorous bats
(Family Phyllostomidae): an experimental study. Journal of Zoology, 248: 219-229.

Dumont, E.R., 2003. Bats and fruit: an ecomorphological approach. In Bat Ecology (ed. T. H.
Kunz and M. B. Fenton), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 398-429.

Fenton, M.B., 1990. The foraging behaviour and ecology of animal eating bats. Can. J.Zool., 68:
411-422.

Fenton, M.B., 1992. Pellage pattern and crypsis in roosting bats. Taphozous mauritianus and
Ephomophorus species. Koe., 35: 49-55.

Fenton, M.B., 2003. Science and the conservation of bats: where to next?. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 31(1): 6–15.

Freeman, P.W., 1979. Specialized insectivory: Beetle-eating and moth-eating molossid bats.
Journal of Mammalogy, 60: 467-479.

Gloor, S., Stutz, H.P.B. and Ziswiler, V., 1995. Nutritional habits of the Nocutle bat Nyc-talus
noctula (Schreber, 1774) in Switzerland. Myotis., 32-33: 231–242.

Grindal, S.D. and Brigham, R.M., 1999. Impacts of forest harvesting on habitat use by foraging
insectivorous bats at different spatial scale. Ecoscience, 6: 25-34.

29
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Habersetzer, J. and Storch, G., 1989. Ecology and echolocation of the Eocene Messel bats. In:
Hana´ k V,Hora´cˇek I and Gaisler J, eds. European bat research 1987. Prague: Charles
University Press, 213–133.

Howes, C.A., 1974. Notes on the prey and feeding behaviour of the noctule bat. Naturalist., 930:
107–110.

Jennings, N.V., Parsons, S., Arlow, K.E.B. and Annon, M.R.C., 2004. Echolocation calls and
wing morphology of bats from the West Indies. Act.Chirop., 6(1): 75-90.

Jones, G., 1990. Prey selection by the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum): optimal
foraging by echolocation? Journal of Animal Ecology, 59(2): 587-602.

Jones, G.C., John, H.L.H. and Moshe, S., 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69:
373-386.

Kalko, E.K.V., Estrada, V.S., Schmidt, M., Wegmann, M. and Meyer, C.F.J., 2008. Flying high –
assessing the use of the aerosphere by bats. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48, 60–
73.

Kasso, M. and Balakrishnan, M., 2013. Ecological and economic importance of bats (ORDER
CHIROPTERA), Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box
1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kelm, D.H., Wiesner, K.R. and Von, H.O., 2008. Effects of artificial roosts for frugivorous bats
on seed dispersal in a Neotropical forest pasture mosaic. Conservation Biology, 22, 733–
741.

Kunz, T.H., 1988. Food habit analysis of insectivorous bats. In: Ecological and behavioural
methods for the study of bats (Kunz T. H. ed.), Simithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, London. 171-209.

Kurta, A. and Whitaker, J.O., 1996. Diet of endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis in Michigan.
Bat Research News, 37:139.

Lobova, T.A., Geiselman, C.K. and Mori, S.A., 2009. Seed Dispersal by Bats in the Neotropics.
New York Botanical Garden Press, New York.

Nair, P.K.R., 1989. Agroforestry systems in the tropics. Kluwer Academic publishers.
Dordrecht. Netherlands.

Neuweiler, G., 1984. Evolutionary Aspects of Bat Echolocation, J. Comp. Physiol. A., 189: 245–
256.

Neuweiler, G., 1989. Foraging ecology and audition in echolocating bats. Trends Ecol. Evol., 4:
160–166.

Neuweiler, G., 2001. The biology of bats, Published by Oxford University Press.

Norberg, U.M., 1981. Allometry of bat wings and legs and comparison with bird wings. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc., 292: 359-398.

Norberg, U.M. and Rayner, J.M., 1987. Ecological Morphology and Flight in Bats (Mammalia;
Chiroptera): Wing Adaptation, Flight Performance, Foraging Strategy and
Echolocation, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 1987, pp 335–427.
30
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Pavey, C.R., Burwell, C.J., Grunwald, J.E., Marshall, C.J. and Neuweiler, G., 2001. Dietary
benefits of twilight foraging by insectivorous bats. Hipposideros speoris. Biotropica, 33:
670-681.

Philips, W.W.A., 1980. Manual of the mammal of Sri Lanka. Part-1, wildlife and nature
protection Society of srilanka, 1-116.

Potter, D.A. and Braman, S.K., 1991. Ecology and management of turfgrass insects. Annual.
Review of Entomology, 36: 383-406.

Rayner, H.C., Atkins, R.C. and Westerman, R.A., 1989. Relief of local stump pain by capsaicin
cream. Lancet, 2: 1276-1277.

Reduker, D.W. 1983. Functional analysis of the masticatory apparatus in two species of Myotis.
J. Mammal, 64: 277-286.

Robinson, M.F. and Stebbings, R.E., 1993. Food of the serotine bat, Eptesicus serotinus’s faecal
analysis a valid qualitative and quantitative technique? Journal of Zoology, 231: 239-248.

Rydell, J. and Petersons, G., 1998. The diet of the noctule bat Nyctalus noctula in Latvia. Z.
Säugetierkd, 63: 79–83.

Simmons, N.B., 2005. Order Chiroptera, In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds.), Mammal
Species of the World, 3rd Edition, Volume 1. The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD, USA. 2142. pp.312-529.

Strait, S.G., 1993. Differences in occlusal morphology and molar size in frugivores and
faunivores. Journal of Human evolution, 25: 471–484.

Storch, G., 1968. Funktionsmorphologische Untersuchungen an der Kaumuskulatur und an

korrelierten Schadelstrukturen der Chi- ropteren. Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 517:
1-92.

Skuhrava, M., Skuhravy, V. and Brewer, J.W., 1984. Biology of gall midges, p. 169-222. In
Ananthakrishan, T.N. Biology of Insect Galls. Word & IBH. New Delhi, Bombay,
Calcutta. 362 p.

Tashiro, H., 1987. Turfgrass insects of the United States and Canada. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca NYand London. 391pp.

Taake, K.H., 1996. Beutetiere westfälischer Abendsegler (Nyctalus noctula). Myotis. Bonn., 34:
121–122.

Von, H.O. and Winter, Y., 2003. Glossophagine bats and their flowers: costs and benefits for
plants and pollinators. In: Kunz, T.H., Fenton, M.B. (Eds.), Bat Ecology. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 346–397.

Whitaker, J.O., 1993. Bats, Beetles and Bugs. More bigbrown bats as agricultural pests. Bats, 11:
23.

Whitaker, J.O., Neefus, C. and Kunz, T.H., 1996. Dietary variation in the Mexican free-tailed bat
(Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana). Journal of Mammalogy, 77: 716-724.

Zinn, T.L. and Humphrey, S.R., 1981. Seasonal food resources and prey selection of the
southeastern brown bat (Myotis austroriparius) in Florida. Florida Scientist, 44: 81-90.
31
www.scrutinyjournals.com Ponmalar and Vanitharani / SIRJ-BES 1:5 (2014)

Wallin, L., 1969. The Japanese bat fauna. Zool Bidrg, 37: 226–440.

Williams, G.K., Perfecto, I. and Vandermeer, J., 2008. Bats limit insects in a Neotropical
agroforestry system. Science, 320: 70.

32