ArticlePloS one2024
Feeding efficiency of two coexisting nectarivorous bat species (Phyllostomidae: Glossophaginae) at flowers of two key-resource plants.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chiroptera Personality-A Guide for Assessing Personality Variation in Bats: Ecological, Methodological and Statistical Considerations.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Convergent mechanisms, divergent strategies: a comparison of nectar intake between a generalist and a specialist bat species.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Article
- Intraspecific and Geographical Variation of GIntegrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals should maximize their energy uptake while reducing the costs for foraging. For flower-visitors these costs and benefits are rather straight forward as the energy uptake equals the caloric content of the consumed nectar while the costs equal the handling time at the flower. Due to their energetically demanding lifestyle, flower-visiting bats face particularly harsh energetic conditions and thus need to optimize their foraging behavior at the flowers of the different plant species they encounter within their habitat. In flight cage experiments we examined the nectar-drinking behavior (i.e. hovering duration, nectar uptake, and the resulting feeding efficiency) of the specialized nectar-feeding bat Hylonycteris underwoodi and the more generalistic Glossophaga commissarisi at flowers of two plant species that constitute important nectar resources in the Caribbean lowland rainforests of Costa Rica and compared nectar-drinking behavior between both bat species and at both plant species. We hypothesized that the 1) specialized bat should outperform the more generalistic species and that 2) bats should generally perform better at flowers of the nectar-rich flowers of the bromeliad Werauhia gladioliflora than at the relatively nectar-poor flowers of the Solanaceae Merinthopodium neuranthum that has an extremely long flowering phase and therefore is an extremely reliable nectar resource, particularly for the specialized Hylonycteris. While we did not find substantial differences in the feeding efficiency of the generalist G. commissarisi, we observed an increased feeding efficiency of the specialized H. underwoodi at flowers of the nectar-poor M. neuranthum. This suggests that familiarity and ecological importance are more important determinants of the interaction than just morphological traits. Our results demonstrate that in addition to morphology, behavioral adaptations are also important drivers that determine the fitness of nectar-feeding bats. Both familiarity with and the ecological importance of a resource seem to contribute to shaping the interactions between pollinating bats and their plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.