Biologia 68/1: 170—175, 2013 Section Zoology DOI: 10.2478/s11756-012-0139-1

Body size as an important factor determining trophic niche partitioning in three syntopic rhinolophid species

Michal Andreas1,AntonínReiter2,EvaCepáková3 & Marcel Uhrin4, 5

1The Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental Gardening, Květnové nám. 391,CZ-25243 Průhonice, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] 2South Moravian Museum Znojmo, Přemyslovců 6,CZ-66945 Znojmo, Czech Republic 3Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Kaplanova 1931/1,CZ-14800 Praha 11, Czech Republic 4Institute of Biology and Ecology, P. J. Šafárik University, Moyzesova 11,SK-04001 Košice, Slovakia 5Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 1176,CZ-16521 Praha 6, Czech Republic

Abstract: We investigated a community of syntopically occurring horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros, R. euryale, R. ferrumequinum) in southern Slovakia. The faecal pellets of these bat species were collected in the field and later analysed under a dissecting microscope. The three species studied are known to be very similar as far as their ecology, echolocation and preferred are concerned, but they diverge significantly in their body sizes. In this study, all three species fed predominantly on [59–80 percentage frequency (%f); 87–95 percentage volume (%vol)], but their diet compositions differed in the size of individuals consumed. The smallest bat species (R. hipposideros) fed only on the smallest moths (%f = 59; %vol = 87), the medium-sized species (R. euryale) mainly on medium-sized moths (%f = 60; %vol = 74) and the largest one (R. ferrumequinum) especially on the largest moths (%f = 54; %vol = 89). Despite similar preferred and the main prey category, the rates of trophic niche overlap were surprisingly low. The trophic niche percentage overlap was 7–31% (computed from %f data) and 1–20% (computed from %vol data), respectively and suggests an extraordinary importance of mere divergences of bats in their body sizes for trophic niche partitioning and stable species coexistence. Key words: Chiroptera; diet; Rhinolophus hipposideros; Rhinolophus euryale; Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; resource par- titioning; trophic niche overlap

Introduction occurs in regions with extensive karstic areas (Mitchell- Jones et al. 1999; Dietz et al. 2009). In some regions, for The stable coexistence of bat species within a commu- example in southern Slovakia (Uhrin et al. 1996), rel- nity in the same habitat is possible only when they are atively abundant populations of the three species live distinguished in species-specific utilisation of limiting in syntopy, and the question arises how they partition resources (Arlettaz et al. 1997; Siemers & Schnitzler food resources. 2004). In such situations, as one of the most important Body size is known to be one of the main factors rules in ecology, the principle of competitive exclusion that directly influence the size of bats’ prey (Freeman is believed to play an essential role (Hardin 1960). In & Lemen 2007). Among the studied horseshoe species, bats, species are differentiated in a wide range of mor- their body size is the most important difference (Dietz phological and echolocation parameters, microhabitat et al 2006). The species slightly differ also in echoloca- preferences or in sensory access to prey (Norberg & tion loudness (Schuchmann & Siemers 2010) and wing Rayner 1987; Arlettaz 1999, Bogdanowicz et al. 1999; shape parameters. These features together with differ- Fenton & Bogdanowicz 2002; Siemers & Swift 2006; Safi ent body size are probably the reason why the large & Siemers 2010). R. ferrumequinum avoids foraging in dense vegetation There are five rhinolophid bat species in Europe, as compared to the small R. hipposideros (Dietz et al. which are distributed mostly in the Mediterranean re- 2006). However, in general, these three species show gion. However, Rhinolophus hipposideros (Borkhausen, very similar shape of their flying apparatuses (Nor- 1797) and Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) berg & Rayner 1987; Dietz et al. 2009), similar echolo- are also widely distributed outside the Mediterranean, cation in a form of long CF signals (Russo & Jones and their distribution ranges cover parts of Central 2002) and they are reported to forage rather in struc- and Western Europe; Rhinolophus euryale Blasius, 1853 tured habitats, relatively close to vegetation especially also partially reaches the south of Central Europe and in broad-leaved forests, meadows and along woodland

c 2013 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences Trophic niche partitioning in rhinolophid bats 171 edges (Bontadina et al. 2002; Goiti et al. 2003, 2008; meters from each other. The caves are a part of the Domica- Dietz et al. 2009; Flanders & Jones 2009). Baradla cave system in the Hungarian-Slovak borderlands. Rhinolophus hipposideros is a small bat hunting Oak-hornbeam forests are the most widespread habitat in close to vegetation, where it captures insects in flight their vicinity (5 km). Fields, pastures, scrublands and dry and also picks prey directly from surfaces (Jones & grasslands are less represented. Some smaller water bodies Rayner 1989; Dietz et al. 2009). In Western Europe and creeks with riparian vegetation and several villages are also present in the area. the species is found mainly in forests (Bontadina et al. The bats were netted at the cave entrances within three 2002; Reiter 2004), while in South-Eastern Europe it days (17–19 August 1995). They were identified and sexed, uses a broader habitat spectrum (Dietz et al. 2009). their forearm length was taken with the use of mechani- Nematocerans were found to be the main prey of R. hip- cal calliper (accuracy 0.1 mm), their weight using vertical posideros in Europe (McAney & Fairley 1989; Beck et spring balances (accuracy 0.25 g), and were placed individ- al. 1989, Beck 1995). Rhinolophus euryale is a medium- ually into numbered cloth sacks. They were released after sized bat hunting particularly in dense vegetation, fly- several hours and the faecal samples from the sacks were ing along woodland edges, plunging into foliage or hunt- collected for later analysis. We collected 241 pellets from ing from a perch (Goiti et al. 2003; Siemers & Ivanova 17 individuals of R. hipposideros, 103 pellets from 33 indi- 2004; Dietz et al. 2009). Some authors suppose decidu- viduals of R. euryale and 320 pellets from 22 individuals of ous forests to be its main foraging grounds (Russo et al. R. ferrumequinum. Faecal samples from the individual bats were placed in labelled microtubes which were refilled with 2002, 2005; Aihartza et al. 2003), other regard hunting 70% ethanol. in interface habitats between woodland and open ar- Rhinolophus In the laboratory, droppings were softened by water in eas to be important (Goiti et al. 2008). a Petri dish and then were teased apart with a dissecting euryale feeds especially on moths, followed by crane needle and a pair of tweezers under a binocular microscope flies (Tipulidae), scarabaeid beetles and neuropterans (10–50× magnification). Prey categories were identified us- (Koselj 2002; Goiti et al. 2004; Benda et al. 2006; Goiti ing comparative slides, methodological works (e.g., Shiel et et al. 2008; Whitaker & Karata¸s 2009; Benda et al. al. 1997), entomological keys, and a reference collection of 2010). Rhinolophus ferrumequinum is the largest Eu- insects. Moths were divided into three size categories accord- ropean aerially hawking in a slow flight ing to the size of the remnants (frenulum, antennae, leg frag- close to vegetation, often low above the ground or at ments, etc.) in the faeces and according to their wingspan as < the height of 4–6 m over pastures searching for dung follows: smaller moths 25 mm, medium-sized 25–40 mm, larger >40 mm. beetles. Perch hunting occurs frequently in R. ferrume- To express the results of diet analyses, we used the for- quinum, especially in periods with lower prey density, mula suggested by Andreas et al. (2012) for percentage fre- or in the second half of the night (Jones & Rayner 1989; quency (%f). The percentage frequency (%f) of a particular Dietz et al. 2009). The species forages mainly in decid- prey category was expressed as the number of occurrences of uous woodlands, permanent meadows and grazed pas- the category, divided by total occurrences for all categories, tures (Bontadina et al. 1997; Flanders & Jones 2009), multiplied by 100. This is a modified formula proposed by and the main prey categories in its European range are Shiel et al. (1997), where the unit used in the analysis was moths, beetles, dipterans and hymenopterans (Jones not one bat dropping, but the sample of faecal pellets col- 1990; Beck 1995; Flanders & Jones 2009). lected from one bat individual. Percentage volume (%vol) Variation in the diets of the species studied across was assessed according to Obrtel & Holišová (1974) and ex- the different regions and seasons recorded in the afore- pressed as the sum of all relative volumes of a particular prey category in individual faecal samples in the studied set mentioned studies show the flexibility of these bat of faecal samples divided by the number of faecal samples in species. The variation in the diet also suggests that it the analysed set of samples. Percentage frequency indicates is vital to study the ecology of syntopically coexisting the relative importance of the particular prey categories ac- populations if we want to identify trophic niche overlaps cording to the frequencies in which they were consumed. and understand resource partitioning and competition Percentage volume describes the proportion of the volume levels. This paper focuses on the trophic niches of the represented by each particular prey category in the set of particular horseshoe bats and differences in their diets. faecal samples analysed. The main aim of the paper is to show a mechanism of The difference between two proportions was tested to niche differentiation in the three species living in syn- assess the difference between the two compared percentage topy. As they are quite similar in their general ecology, frequencies. The difference between two means was used to echolocation and habitat preference, but differ signifi- calculate the significance level between mean values of body cantly in body size (Csorba et al. 2003), the divergence weight and forearm length. The tests were performed us- ing STATISTICA for Windows (Basic statistics/difference in diet composition will enable the assessment of the tests/difference between two proportions and difference be- importance of body sizes in trophic niche partitioning. tween two means) Trophic niche overlap was computed as a percentage overlap (Pjk) according to Krebs (1999). Material and methods Percentage overlap of trophic niches was computed us- nd The study was conducted at the Líščia diera cave and Čer- ing Programs For Ecological Methodology, 2 ed., c Char- tova diera cave (48◦2851 N, 20◦2740 E, 370 m a.s.l.) les J. Krebs, 2008, version 6.1.4. in SE Slovakia. These two caves are situated in the south- Niche breadth (B) was measured according to Levins western part of the Silická planina plateau several dozen (1968). 172 M. Andreas et al.

Fig. 1. Percentage frequency of lepidopteran prey categories in the diets of R. hipposideros (white columns), R. euryale (grey columns) and R. ferrumequinum (black columns) from southern Slovakia and the significance of recorded percentage frequency differences (Differences between two proportions method). **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. For complete diet composition see corresponding text.

Results of the differences in representation of the particular size categories are also non-significant; however, Diet composition these are related only to the cases where the particular The diets of all three species were dominated by size category is only marginally consumed by the given Lepidoptera. In the case of R. hipposideros,this species (e.g., large Lepidoptera in the diet of R. hip- prey category was supplemented with Neuroptera posideros and R. euryale). On the other hand, where (Hemerobiidae) (%f = 13.8; %vol = 1.5), nema- the given moth size category makes up an important toceran (%f = 20.7; %vol = 10.0) and brachyc- part of the bat’s diet (small Lepidoptera in the diet eran (%f = 6.9; %vol = 1.2) Diptera. Similarly, the of R. hipposideros, medium ones in the diet of R. eu- diet of R. euryale contained Neuroptera (Hemerobi- ryale and large ones in the diet of R. ferrumequinum), idae) (%f = 2.2; %vol = 0.3), nematoceran Diptera its representation is always significantly different when (%f = 13.3; %vol = 9.1) and Trichoptera (%f = 6.7; compared to its representation in the diets of the other %vol = 3.6). The samples of droppings of R. fer- two species. rumequinum comprised also Coleoptera (%f = 19.5; %vol = 4.82), represented by Scarabaeidae, Elateridae Trophic niche overlap and niche breadth and Curculionoidea. Trophic niche breadths expressed as the Levins’ niche The most significant differences in diet composition breadth index B are quite similar in all three species: were recorded in the representation of particular body B(R. hipposideros) = 2.44; B (R. euryale) = 2.45; size categories of moths (Figs 1, 2). The medium-sized B(R. ferrumequinum) = 2.71. Generally, the recorded and larger individuals were completely absent from the values of the Levins’ trophic niche breadth index are diet of the smallest bat species R. hipposideros.The low. Trophic niche overlap (Pjk) among the studied smallest size category of moths was represented in the species is considerably low (Table 1). Resource parti- diet of the largest R. ferrumequinum quite rarely and tioning and low values of overlap are even more obvious its volume was negligible. The medium-sized R. euryale when the calculation is based not on frequency data but was in an intermediate position between the other two on volume data. species. Faecal samples collected from more than 20% of captured R. euryale bats contained some remnants Discussion of smaller moths and one sample contained remains of a larger one. However, the diet was mostly composed of This study describes diet composition of three syn- medium-sized moths. topic bat species and demonstrates the importance of The fact that the most important differences in their different body sizes in trophic niche partition- diet are the size categories of moths is visible in Fig. 1. ing in a season when they fed predominantly on Lepi- Interspecific differences in the proportion of other prey doptera, which is their frequently consumed prey cate- categories are not significant in most of the cases. Some gory. Trophic niche partitioning in rhinolophid bats 173

Fig. 2. Percentage volume of lepidopteran prey categories (+ SE) in the diets of R. hipposideros (white columns), R. euryale (grey columns) and R. ferrumequinum (black columns) from southern Slovakia. SE computed for complete diet composition.

Table 1. Trophic niche overlaps expressed as a percentage overlap (Pjk). Results computed from percentage frequency (%f) and percentage volume data (%vol).

R. hipposideros R. euryale R. ferrumequinum

Calculation based on %f %vol %f %vol %f %vol

R. hipposideros 100 100 31.11 19.697 7.32 0.909 R. euryale 31.11 19.697 100 100 29.05 9.167 R. ferrumequinum 7.32 0.909 29.05 9.167 100 100

The recorded diet composition of R. hipposideros The recorded diet composition of R. ferrum- does not fully correspond with other studies, for ex- equinum corresponds with the results of several pre- ample, in other parts of Europe nematoceran Diptera vious studies that recorded Lepidoptera to be the most usually prevail and Lepidoptera are only the second important diet item followed by Coleoptera (Jones most important prey category (McAney & Fairley 1989; 1990; Beck 1995; Whitaker & Karata¸s 2009; Benda et Beck et al. 1989; Beck 1995). Our results are near- al. 2010). Nevertheless, proportions of these items vary, est to the diet composition of a colony in Bavaria probably depending on the season and current food (Weiner & Zahn 2000), where “almost each pellet in- availability, and predominance of Coleoptera over Lep- cluded scales of Lepidoptera (94%)”. Also diet analy- idoptera was also recorded (Flanders & Jones 2009). ses from the Middle East showed a predominance of Our results suggest a lower ability of R. hip- Lepidoptera (Feldman et al. 2000; Whitaker & Karata¸s posideros to feed on larger moths. On the other hand, it 2009). Benda et al. (2008) suggested intensive feed- is probably more profitable for R. ferrumequinum to se- ing on swarming ants in the Sinai, while Auchen- lect larger species of moths (e.g., Jones 1990). Besides orrhyncha (74% volume) were found to prevail over moths, other prey categories in our samples indicate Lepidoptera (26% volume) in the diet composition differences in hunting capability of the species stud- of two individuals collected in Jordan (Benda et al. ied. Nematocerans and lacewings (softer and smaller 2010). prey categories) are included in the diet of the small The composition of the diet of R. euryale having R. hipposideros, whereas the diet of the large R. fer- a high proportion of Lepidoptera agrees well with the rumequinum contains larger and harder beetles. After results of previous studies. A majority of moths in the all, extensive feeding of R. hipposideros on nematocer- diet was also observed in southern Europe and the Mid- ans is well documented in Europe (McAney & Fairley dle East (Koselj 2002; Goiti et al. 2004, 2008; Benda et 1989; Beck et al. 1989; Beck 1995), similarly as impor- al. 2006, 2010; Whitaker & Karata¸s 2009), and R. eu- tant existence of beetles in the diet of R. ferrumequinum ryale seems to be a moth eating specialist. (Flanders & Jones 2009). 174 M. Andreas et al.

The differences recorded in the diets of the species Acknowledgements studied most probably originate from the differences in their body size and with body size closely related We wish to thank J. Horák and T. Chuman for their help issues like biting strength and food handling abilities. with statistical analysis. The research was supported by The fact that larger species of bats feed on larger prey grants from the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Re- public (No. MSM6293359101), the Czech Science Founda- is expected and has been previously recorded (Free- tion (No. 206/09/0888) and the Scientific Grant Agency of man & Lemen 2007). Nevertheless, a study of a syn- the Ministry of Education, Science Research and Sport of topic community of different-sized bats, that other- the Slovak Republic (VEGA No. 1/1046/12). The sample wise are very similar in other qualities, could demon- collection complied with the nature conservation laws of Slo- strate how important body size is as a factor en- vakia. abling trophic niche partitioning and the coexistence of different species. Our investigation indicates that References a roughly twofold increase of body weight reduces the levels of trophic niche overlaps to some 20–30% Aihartza J.R., Garin I., Goiti U., Zabala J. & Zuberogoitia I. in the case of the group of rhinolophid bats studied. 2003. Spring habitat selection by the Mediterranean horse- The larger body size in R. ferrumequinum also prob- shoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale) in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve (Basque Country). Mammalia 67: 25–32. DOI: ably enables this species to feed on a broader spec- 10.1515/mamm.2003.67.1.25 trum of prey, which is indicated by higher values of Andreas M. 2002. Potravní ekologie společenstva netopýrů [Feed- the Levins’ trophic niche breadth index. Different peak ing ecology of a bat community]. Ph.D. Thesis, Czech Agri- echolocation frequencies may also be a factor contribut- culture University, Prague, 163 pp. Andreas M., Reiter A. & Benda P. 2012. Prey selection and sea- ing to trophic niche partitioning among the studied sonal diet changes in the western barbastelle bat. Acta Chi- species. It may cause differently sensitive perception ropterol. 14 (1): 81–92. DOI: 10.3161/150811012X654295 of particular prey size categories (e.g., Safi & Siemers Arlettaz R. 1999. Habitat selection as a major resource parti- 2010). tioning mechanism between two sympatric sibling bat species Myotis myotis and Myotis blythii.J.Anim.Ecol.68 (3): 460– The question may arise whether the recorded lev- 471. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00293.x els of the trophic niche overlap are not also a conse- Arlettaz R., Perrin N. & Hausser J. 1997. Trophic resource parti- quence of different habitat preferences (cf. e.g., M. my- tioning and competition between the two sibling bat species otis vs M. blythii in Arlettaz 1999), which were not Myotis myotis and Myotis blythii.J.Anim.Ecol.66 (6): studied within this study. However, previous papers (e. 897–911. DOI: 10.2307/6005 Beck A. 1995. Fecal analyses of European bat species. Myotis g., Bontadina et al. 2002; Aihartza et al. 2003; Dietz et 32–33: 109–119. al. 2009; Flanders & Jones 2009) do not indicate sig- Beck A., Stutz H.-P.B. & Ziswiler V. 1989. Das beutespektrum nificant differences in habitat preferences of the species der Kleinen Hufeisennase Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bech- 96 studied. stein, 1800) (Mammalia, Chiroptera). Rev. Suisse Zool. (3): 643–650. Diet compositions and niche overlap parameters Benda P., Andreas M., Kock D., Lučan R.K., Munclinger P., can naturally vary throughout the season. There is an NováP.,ObuchJ.,OchmanK.,ReiterA.,UhrinM.&Wein- abundance peak of smaller moths within the summer furtová D. 2006. Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the Eastern season (Sierro & Arlettaz 1997; Andreas et al. 2012), Mediterranean. Part 4. Bat fauna of Syria: distribution, sys- tematics, ecology. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. 70: 1–329. and therefore this prey category is frequently recorded Benda P., Dietz C., Andreas M., Hotový J., Lučan R.K., Maltby in the diet of R. hipposideros,whichinmanycases A., Meakin K., Truscott J. & Vallo P. 2008. Bats (Mammalia: feeds heavily on nematocerans (e.g., McAney & Fair- Chiroptera) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. ley 1989; Beck et al. 1989; Beck 1995). Nevertheless, Part 6. Bats of Sinai (Egypt) with some taxonomic, ecological and echolocation data on that fauna. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. a significant shift in diet composition from nemato- 72 (1–4): 1–103. cerans to small moths at the time of their high sum- Benda P., Lučan R.K., Obuch J., Reiter A., Andreas M., Bačkor mer abundance was also observed in other bat species, P., Bohnenstengel T., Eid E.K., Ševčík M., Vallo P. & e.g., in Myotis brandtii (Eversmann, 1845) and Myo- Amr Z.S. 2010. Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the East- tis mystacinus ern Mediterranean and Middle East. Part 8. Bats of Jordan: (Kuhl, 1718) (Andreas 2002). A sig- fauna, ecology, echolocation, ectoparasites. Acta Soc. Zool. nificant proportion of beetles in the diet of R. fer- Bohem. 74: 185–353. rumequinum within the period of high abundance of Bogdanowicz W., Fenton M.B. & Daleszczyk K. 1999. The re- scarabaeid beetles is to be expected (e.g., Flanders & lationship between echolocation calls, morphology and diet in insectivorous bats. J. Zool. 247 (Part 3): 381–393. DOI: Jones 2009). Therefore, the sample collected only rep- 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb01001.x resents the situation in a certain time period. Tak- Bontadina F., Hotz T., Gloor S., Beck A., Lutz M. & M¨uhlethaler ing into consideration the fact that the recorded pe- E. 1997. Schutz von Jagdgebieten von Rhinolophus ferrume- riod is the time when all three species studied fed quinum. Umsetzung der Ergebnisse einer Telemetrie-Studie almost entirely on the same prey (moths), the ma- in einem Alpental der Schweiz, pp. 33–39. In: Ohlendorf B. (ed.), Tagungsband Zur Situation der Hufeisennasen in Eu- terial collected represents a very good opportunity ropa, Nebra, Deutschland, 26. bis 28. Mai 1995. Arbeitskreis to compare their trophic niches and foraging abil- Flederm¨ause Sachsen-Anhalt e.V., IFA Verlag, Berlin, Ger- ities. As a result, we can compare the consumed many, 182 pp. ISBN: 3896899996, 9783896899996 prey categories only according to their size, without Bontadina F., Schofield H. & Naef-Daenzer B. 2002. Radio- tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hip- other factors, such as prey hardness, confounding the posideros) forage in woodland. J. Zool. 258 (Part 3): 281– data. 290. DOI: 10.1017/S0952836902001401 Trophic niche partitioning in rhinolophid bats 175

Csorba G., Ujhelyi P. & Thomas N. 2003. Horseshoe bats of the Norberg U.M. & Rayner J.M.V. 1987. Ecological morphology world (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae). Alana Books, Bishop’s and flight in bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): wing adaptations, Castle, U.K., 160 pp. ISBN: 0953604918 flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Phi- Dietz C., Dietz I. & Siemers B. M. 2006. Wing measurement los. Trans. R. Soc. B – Biol. Sci. 316 (1179): 335–427. variations in the five European horseshoe bat species (Chi- Obrtel R. & Holišová V. 1974. Trophic niches of Apodemus roptera: Rhinolophidae). J. . 87 (6): 1241–1251. flavicollis and Clethrionomys glareolus in a lowland forest. DOI: 10.1644/05–MAMM-A-299R2.1 Přírodovědné práce ústavů ČSAV v Brně n.s. [Acta Sci. Nat. Dietz C., von Helversen O. & Nill D. 2009. Bats of Britain, Europe Brno] 8(7),37 pp. & Northwest Africa. A & C Black Publishers Ltd., London, Reiter G. 2004. The importance of woodland for Rhinolophus hip- 400 pp. ISBN-13: 9781408105313 posideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae) in Austria. Mammalia Feldman R., Whitaker J.O. Jr. & Yom-Tov Y. 2000. Dietary com- 68 (4): 403–410. DOI: 10.1515/mamm.2004.040 position and habitat use in a desert insectivorous bat com- Russo D. & Jones G. 2002. Identification of twenty-two bat munity in Israel. Acta Chiropterol. 2(1):15–22. species (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Italy by analysis of Fenton M.B. & Bogdanowicz W. 2002. Relationshiphs between time-expanded recordings of echolocation calls. J. Zool. 258 external morphology and foraging behaviour: bats in the (Part 1): 91–103. DOI: 10.1017/S0952836902001231 genus Myotis.Can.J.Zool.-Rev.Can.Zool.80 (6): 1004– Russo D., Jones G. & Migliozzi A. 2002. Habitat selection by 1013. DOI: 10.1139/Z02-083 the Mediterranean horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus euryale (Chi- Flanders J. & Jones G. 2009. Roost use, ranging behavior, and roptera: Rhinolophidae) in a rural area of southern Italy and diet of greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 107 (1): 71–81. using a transitional roost. J. Mammal. 90 (4): 888–896. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/S0006–3207(02)00047–2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-352.1 Russo D., Almenar D., Aihartza J., Goiti U., Salsamendi E. & Freeman P.W. & Lemen C.A. 2007. Using scissors to quantify Garin I. 2005. Habitat selection in sympatric Rhinolophus hardness of insects: do bats select for size or hardness? J. Zool. mehelyi and R. euryale (Mammalia: Chiroptera). J. Zool. 266 271 (4): 469–476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469–7998.2006.00231.x (Part 3): 327–332. DOI: 10.1017/S0952836905006990 Goiti U., Aihartza J.R. & Garin I. 2004. Diet and prey selec- Safi K. & Siemers B.M. 2010. Implications of sensory ecology for tion in the Mediterranean horseshoe bat Rhinolophus euryale species coexistence: biased perception links predator diver- (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae) during the pre-breeding season. sity to prey size distribution. Evol. Ecol. 24: 703–713. DOI: Mammalia 68 (4): 397–402. DOI: 10.1515/mamm.2004.039 10.1007/s10682-009-9326-0 Goiti U., Aihartza J.R., Garin I. & Zabala J. 2003. Influence Schuchmann M. & Siemers B.M. 2010. Variability in echoloca- of habitat on the foraging behaviour of the Mediterranean tion call intensity in a community of horseshoe bats: A role horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus euryale.ActaChiropterol.5(1): for resource partitioning or communication? PLoS ONE 5: 75–84. e12842. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012842. Goiti U., Garin I., Almenar D., Salsamendi E. & Aihartza J. Shiel C., McAney C., Sullivan C. & Fairley J. 1997. Identification 2008. Foraging by Mediterranean horsheshoe bat (Rhinolo- of Arthropod Fragments in Bat Droppings. Mammal Society, phus euryale) in relation to prey distribution and edge habi- London, 56 pp. ISBN: 0906282330 tat. J. Mammal. 89 (2): 493–502. DOI: 10.1644/07-MAMM- Siemers B.M. & Ivanova T. 2004. Ground gleaning in horseshoe A-054R2.1 bats: comparative evidence from Rhinolophus blasii, R. eu- Hardin G. 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131 ryale and R. mehelyi. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56 (5): 464– (3409): 1292–1297. DOI: 10.1126/science.131.3409.1292 471. DOI: 10.1007/s00265–004–0807–4 Jones G. 1990. Prey selection by the (Rhi- Siemers B.M. & Schnitzler H.U. 2004. Echolocation signals reflect nolophus ferrumequinum): optimal foraging by echolocation? niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species. J. Anim. Ecol. 59 (2): 587–602. DOI: 10.2307/4882 Nature 429 (6992): 657–661. DOI: 10.1038/nature02547 Jones G. & Rayner, J.M.V. 1989. Foraging behavior and echoloca- Siemers B.M. & Swift S.M. 2006. Differences in sensory ecol- tion of wild Horseshoe Bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and ogy contribute to resource partitioning in the bats Myo- R. hipposideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae). Behav. Ecol. tis bechsteinii and Myotis nattereri (Chiroptera: Vespertil- Sociobiol. 25 (3): 183–191. DOI: 10.1007/BF00302917 ionidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59 (3): 373–380. DOI: Koselj K. 2002. Prehrana in ekologija južnega podkovnjaka (Rhi- 10.1007/s00265-005-0060-5 nolophus euryale Blasius, 1853; Mammalia: Chiroptera) v ju- Sierro A. & Arlettaz R. 1997. Barbastelle bats (Barbastella spp.) govzhodni Sloveniji [Diet and ecology of the Mediterranean specialize in the of moths: implications for foraging horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale Blasius, 1853; Mam- tactics and conservation. Acta Oecol. 18 (2): 91–106. DOI: malia: Chiroptera) in south-eastern Slovenia]. Unpublished 10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80067-7 MSc. Thesis. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, 126 pp. Uhrin M., Danko Š., Obuch J., Horáček I., Pačenovský S., Krebs C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Second edition. Ad- Pjenčák P. & Fulín M. 1996. Distributional patterns of bats dison Wesley Longman, Inc., New York, 620 pp. ISBN: (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in Slovakia. Part 1, Horseshoe bats 0321021738, 9780321021731 (Rhinolophidae). Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. 60: 247–279. Levins R. 1968. Evolution in Changing Environments: Some The- Weiner P. & Zahn A. 2000. Roosting ecology, population develop- oretical Explorations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, ment, emergence behaviour and diet of a colony of Rhinolo- NJ, USA, 132 pp. ISBN: 9780691080628 phus hipposideros (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) in Bavaria, McAney C.M. & Fairley J.S. 1989. Analysis of the diet of the pp. 231–242. In: Woloszyn B.W. (ed.), Proceedings of the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros in the west of VIIIth EBRS, Vol. I. Approaches to Biogeography and Ecol- Ireland. J. Zool. 217 (Part 3): 491–498. ogy of Bats. Chiropterological Information Center & Institute Mitchell-Jones A.J., Amori G., Bogdanowicz W., Kryštufek of Systematics and Evolution of PAS, Kraków, 273 B., Reijnders P.J.H., Spitzenberger F., Stubbe M., Thissen pp. ISBN: 8385222839, 9788385222835 J.B.M., Vohralík V. & Zima J. 1999. Atlas of European Whitaker J.O. Jr. & Karata¸s A. 2009. Food and feeding habits of . The Academic Press, London, 496 pp. ISBN: some bats from Turkey. Acta Chiropterol. 11 (2): 393–403. 0856611301 DOI: 10.3161/150811009X485611.

Received January 30, 2012 Accepted October 16, 2012